House of Assembly: Vol29 - WEDNESDAY 19 AUGUST 1970
Last night when the House adjourned I was dealing with the two characteristics that I look for in a Budget, and which I have indeed found in this Budget. The first of these is that a Budget should stimulate the growth and development of one’s country without being unnecessarily prejudicial to the growth rate of the economy and without overburdening the taxpayer unnecessarily. The second characteristic is how those citizens, who for one reason or another need assistance, are accommodated. As far as that is concerned, we find that pensions are comparatively much higher than they were at the time of the previous Government. The National Party will never forget the old people of our country, because they made a tremendous contribution to the development of South Africa. In addition I find R14.6 million for higher education. It is said that an investment in youth is an investment for the future, and in this respect the Government is putting the words into action. In addition there are interest subsidies for farmers and for home owners and assistance to farmers amounting to R18,300,000, as well as assistance, amounting to R6.2 million, to farmers in drought-stricken areas for the purchasing of fodder.
We here in South Africa are fortunate to live in a country where peace prevails and where there are far fewer disasters caused by natural forces than in other parts of the world. Notwithstanding our country’s thousands upon thousands of miles of roads and railways, and the thousands of feet of winding passageways in gold and coal mines, we experience very few man-made disasters, i.e. disasters caused by the actions of man. Yet it is interesting to see that we here in South Africa experienced no less than 28 big disasters over the past 14 years, disasters caused by human actions, which gave rise to the death of 1,208 people. Let me mention a few of these disasters. Firstly: On 21st January, 1960, we had the Coal-brook disaster, when 417 people died in a coal mine; secondly: on 4th October, 1965, there was a train disaster in Natal, when 81 people died; thirdly: on 13th March, 1967, there was the Rietbok disaster at East London, when 29 people were killed; fourthly: on 20th April, 1968, there was the Boeing disaster at Windhoek, when 122 people were killed; and fifthly: on 28th January, 1970, the school bus disaster at Meyerton, when 23 young children lost their lives.
In recent times we have experienced two big disasters caused by natural forces, i.e. the Boland earth quake and the present drought which has already taken on disastrous proportions, as we notice in the Karoo and in other parts of our country. We read of this disastrous drought every day in the newspaper. For example, in Die Burger of the day before yesterday it is stated on the front page: “Garden route scorched into a desert; animals lie dead everywhere along the road”. In this morning’s Burger we find again: “Situation too desperate for words—drought in the Karoo”. We are sincerely grateful for what the Government has already done for the people in these areas, but I want to make a suggestion to the Minister for his favourable approval. The entire population must be involved in the distress relief measures when such disastrous circumstances prevail in a part of our country. The suggestion I want to make is that a levy of 1 per cent be added to every person’s income tax, thereby to establish a national disaster fund. The man earning R3,500 a year and paying R140 in tax will then make a trifling contribution of R1.40 a year. The man earning R8,500 a year and paying R935 in tax will contribute R9.35, while the man earning R17,000 will only have to contribute R51. This has already been done elsewhere in the world. For example, in Germany after the Second World War an extra tax was levied on those persons whose property was not damaged in the war. That extra tax was their contribution to the reconstruction of the damaged properties of their fellow-citizens. A levy of 1 per cent on the income tax of our people will furnish R10,039,000 on a total income tax of R1,039,000,000 million Along those lines everyone in South Africa will be able to play a part, and I believe that everyone would like to do so. As we sit here we may thank our Creator for having thusfar been protected against disasters, but tomorrow, or the day after, it may be our fate. In that case those male and female citizens who were not affected by the disaster would like to make a contribution towards relieving your distress and mine. After all, we are living in one country, with one allegiance, one love and one loyalty. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give favourable consideration to this idea.
The hon. member for Heidelberg who has just sat down has some revolutionary ideas about taxation which come strangely from a member of a Government which has between R400 and R500 million sterilized for use when necessary. It does seem that he has been somewhat misled by this Budget. He felt that the characteristics which he saw most keenly in the Budget were the indications that it would lead to growth and development. Perhaps he was misled by the opening remarks of the hon. the Minister of Finance where he indicated that he looked upon the Budget as an important instrument of economic policy which should be used to promote sustainable growth in the prevailing economic circumstances. It looks to me that this is an instrument without a cutting edge in so far as that is concerned. I think it is a pity that the hon. gentleman did not perhaps direct his attention to the closing words of the Minister of Finance in placing his Budget before us, where he concluded with the very frank admission that while he sought to make his Budget an instrument to form an economically strong South Africa, the objective could not be obtained by fiscal policy alone; it required vision and determination in framing broad Government policy. Sir, that is exactly what is lacking. I do not blame the hon. gentleman for having been misled. The hon. the Minister of Finance dressed things up very nicely indeed, but the essence of the matter lies in that statement that by fiscal policy alone he could not achieve his objective; it required vision and determination in the framing of broad Government policy.
Now, let us look at what the hon. the Minister has done. His main worry, of course, has been inflation and he sought to cope with demand inflation by introducing various measures into his Budget, the likely success of which is questioned by some but with which I do not propose to deal at length. In outlining the measures he proposed to use to deal with cost inflation and to cope with the manpower shortage which is so closely connected with it. he gave us his views on the labour situation and assured us that the Government was constantly considering means and methods to overcome the difficulties of industrialists and other employers within the framework of Government policy. He then went on to make a most interesting statement which has been identified by the hon. member for Constantia as that double negative so often used by chairmen of companies who are making sure that they leave a very clear line of retreat for themselves. One is left with the fact that the Minister has made it clear that really neither in this Budget nor in any other can he radically alter the course on which South Africa has been set by his Government.
He makes it clear that he can give a little encouragement here and a little encouragement there and a small improvement here, but in fact he is still the prisoner of his Government’s ideology, and we know what that ideology is only too well. It is an ideology which would have us accept that South Africa has an economically effective population of only 3.5 million people and that at least 13 million of our people are intruders in the economy of that 3.5 million. It is an ideology which therefore restricts the productivity of most of the population. It is an ideology which inhibits the Government in its planning, because the Government must fear the inflation which rises from the fact that our economy is not producing the goods and services legitimately required to meet the growing demands of a society of 20 million people.
The difficulties the hon. the Minister has are so clear from the Budget proposals. Despite the fact that he ended last year with a whacking surplus of R110 million, he has found it necessary to introduce what I can only describe as almost punitive measures to restrict consumption. The rate of the sales tax is up R10 million. Loan levies on individuals and companies are to bring in an extra R28 million, and by the same token certain of the measures he has introduced to encourage production are going to be dependent in the last resort not on what he can offer the manufacturer but on the quantity and the quality of the labour available in the industries concerned. You see, Sir, it is no help to a manufacturer to allow him to write off a percentage of the capital investment in his manufacturing industry if he cannot get the labour to staff and expand his undertaking; and in any event where there is labour uncertainty, a far higher capital input is necessary for the manufacturing industry concerned. Similarly we find the hon. the Minister giving increased help for higher education, which I must confess I welcome very much indeed and which will certainly help to solve part of the problem at the very top. But it does not go to the root of the problem, Sir. Universities do not train technicians or artisans or semi-skilled operators and here the problem is most acute.
The technical colleges are included.
I accept that the hon. gentleman is doing something for higher technical colleges as well, but, Sir, this is only scratching on the surface, because the essence of the problem is in the lower echelons, the semi-skilled and the skilled people, and the Minister does not seem to have one single suggestion to offer in that regard.
A third example is to be found in the increased allowances introduced to give encouragement to exporters. Everyone knows that production for an export market requires long-term planning. Under present conditions and with existing restrictions such planning is virtually impossible. The shortage of labour and uncertainty as to labour supplies make the position of many would-be exporters very difficult indeed and here again the success of the Minister’s proposal, to say the least of it, would seem to be problematical. Sir, we are all familiar with the legislative and administrative machinery which produces this unhappy situation. Authorities, foremost amongst which is the Economic Research Bureau of the Stellenbosch University, are all agreed that the uncertainties which beset investors under Government policy make the task of the manufacturing investor and industrialist, who must produce the exports, very difficult indeed.
They have two reports; to which one are you referring?
Either report will do. All stress the labour uncertainty as the reason for lack of further investment in the manufacturing industry. Only last Sunday the acting head of the Stellenbosch Bureau, Mr. de Vries, confirmed that investors had serious problems. He said, “It is clear that investment in the private manufacturing sector has been decreasing during the past two years”, and the Minister confirms it. He stressed that the shortage of labour was possibly a serious bottleneck and that if we wanted to avoid a continuing battle against inflation and other problems we would be forced to limit our rate of growth in future. The alternative was adaptations in our labour policy, which included changes in job reservation to enable Whites to move from lower occupations to higher ones. Sir, there are other authorities which support Mr. de Vries in his opinion. I think generally the feeling is that the entrepreneur is no longer master of his own planning for the future. The Physical Planning Act bars his plans for expansion and places a premium on Bantu labour which is already in the urban areas to the extent that one of the problems at the moment in our urban areas is increasing absenteeism in our urban industries. Companies which normally would produce for export are already telling us that they have not got sufficient labour to produce even for the South African market. There is no doubt that South Africa is not achieving the growth in manufacturing industry of which it is capable and there is no doubt either that Government policy is responsible for this unhappy situation.
Sir, if further strengthening were necessary, there is the report issued by Mr. Loelofs of the Federated Chamber of Industries. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into it at any length. Sir, I think from what I have said it is perfectly clear that we are dealing with a Budget, the proposals of which arise directly from an artificial ideologically created labour shortage which inhibits our rate of growth, which limits our prosperity and which tends to depreciate the value of our money. These things—retarded growth, limited prosperity and the threat of inflation—constitute a danger to South Africa which we dare not tolerate because more than in other countries they threaten our security; they threaten harmonious race relations in South Africa. They are the result of a non-European policy which cannot be carried out in practice unless you are prepared to devote vast resources to its implementation which are beyond our present capacity. This Government cannot develop our capacity sufficiently to make its policy even remotely practicable. Sir, we have heard of the astronomic sums necessary to make this policy a reality; we have heard how far behind-hand it has got in its efforts to reduce the number of Bantu in the white areas and to reach parity by the year 2000. We all realize that unless there are resources at our disposal which are far in excess of what this Government has been able to afford or will ever dare put to the public, there is no hope whatsoever of this policy becoming a reality. The Government finds itself on the horns of a dilemma in this regard. It cannot get South Africa to grow faster because its ideology hobbles South Africa’s economy. On the other hand, it cannot apply his policy, because under it South Africa’s growth is so slow that it will never be strong enough to carry out Government policy as envisaged by those who first enunciated it. In fact, this is a policy which is self-destructive and our Government is landing in a cul de sac. As long as this Government, with its present inability to progress significantly, remains in control of South Africa, we will reach a dead-end in which we shall be hopelessly overwhelmed by the challenge of our race problems.
We cannot proceed through the ’seventies at the tardy pace to which this Government is committing us. With the new problems and the new challenges which may come, the ’seventies demand that we should act boldly and courageously and quickly in order to avoid a dead end before it is too late for civilization on this sub-continent. I wonder whether the position is not already more serious than the hon. the Minister dares tell us. In order to meet our challenge we will have to rethink our position and we will have to rethink it urgently and seriously. We shall have to rid South Africa of the ideas of this Government which, it seems, looks upon itself as the specially appointed agent of Providence which s empowered to determine out destiny even beyond the little distance which we can hope to see. I believe we should not try to act today as if the dreams of to-morrow were already practical policy. I believe we should rather humbly but earnestly devote ourselves to-day to create the means by which we shall be able to implement those policies that experience may prove right in the future.
I believe we have to put first things first. The first of all those things is that we should develop our economy rapidly, so that we can achieve the wealth and the power which will give us the sinews necessary to tackle our problems successfully, as they then present themselves to us. We should, for example appreciate that new knowledge which is based on accurate research becomes available to us every day. I just want to give one example of what is happening. Professor Tomlinson produced an important report which was based on statistics, population figures and projections, but which was proved to be wrong within a year or two. This caused many of us to start thinking anew in respect of that problem. Now we have been warned that the revised figures upon which that thinking was based will crumble away under our feet when the statistics of the last census become available. This supports my urgent plea. The Government must stop acting as if its ultimate plans were already within our reach. It is especially dangerous when the presumptions which the Government is making lead to actions which inhibit our growth and prevent South Africa to develop into a state which is powerful enough and equipped adequately to make real progress to the solutions which we may wish to seek in the light of greater experience later.
If my pleas is accepted it would mean that we shall no longer bind our economy for purely ideological reasons. We will not continue to force Bantu to go back to the reserves where there is no work for them. It means that we will stop preventing Bantu from performing certain work where there are not enough white people to do the job. It is against this background that I want to issue a challenge to this Government to-day. It is a challenge which I believe they will have to meet in the interests of South Africa and all its people. It is a challenge which they cannot meet if they prefer to live under the presumption that their policy is no longer a dream but an achieved fact in South Africa. I believe it is a challenge which South Africa will demand they meet even if they have to modify their policy seriously and even if they have to abandon its ultimate aims and accept that they will have to be satisfied with achieving limited objectives. My challenge is that the Government shall accept that we are not economically strong enough to-day, nor I believe, ever likely to be, to develop the Bantu areas into sovereign independent states, each economically strong enough to support its black population as citizens of an independent nation state.
With my challenge goes this warning to the Government: If they continue to act to-day as if their policy is already a fact, South Africa will never become strong enough even to achieve limited objectives or any sensible alternative to them. Let us be wise in our generation and let us discharge the responsibility we owe to this country. Let us make it the task of the 1970’s to make our South Africa so strong that we will be able to choose between several possible solutions of our non-European problem and that we will be strong enough to carry out the policy which we consider to be the right one for South Africa, even though we all realize that it cannot be present Government policy.
If we do not accept the challenge to grow, free from unnecessary ideological restrictions, ideological restrictions arising from ideological presumptions, we are inevitably going to land ourselves in a position where our rate of growth will be inadequate for certain very important objectives. It will toe inadequate to ensure the rising standards of living for all our peoples on which harmonious race relations depend. It is going to be inadequate to enable us to maintain our position as the leading economic power in Africa. It is going to be inadequate to make possible the military strength to ensure our security. It is going to be inadequate to ensure such high standards of living that we will continue to attract desirable immigrants to South Africa. It is going to be inadequate to ensure the attraction of adequate foreign development capital to South Africa. It is going to be inadequate to ensure our ability to establish export markets to avoid balance of payments problems. Indeed, if we are not able to maintain a growth rate in South Africa which will make these things possible, which are the very staff of life to us, we run a grave risk that forces will descend on us which for all time will wrest from us the freedom and the power to make our own decisions in respect of our race problems in South Africa.
Please do not make general statements, be specific.
I know the hon. the Minister would like to have it down to the nearest tenth of a per cent and I know he would like to try and catch me out with questions on a cent here and a cent there, but I am not dealing with small-time bookkeepers to-day but with the future of South Africa. The hon. gentleman’s tactics are so obvious, because it is the sort of petty tactics he has been trying to apply to his financial critics ever since he has held this important function as Minister of Finance in South Africa. The problem is that we can lose control and it is a prospect which is so dreadful that I believe that almost any measure which we can take is justified to avoid that situation. My worry is whether this Government is big enough to accept the challenge.
I want to suggest again what I have suggested before. I am sure it will satisfy the hon. the Minister of Finance with his interest in cents and small sums. Let us commission the hon. the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council to prepare for us two estimates of South Africa’s progress. The one estimate should be in regard to the development of the Bantustans towards freedom and the removal of the Black workers from the white areas, as envisaged by the original policy of this Government as the main objective. The second one should be in regard to the maximum improvement of the living standards of the people of South Africa. Let us say to the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council that in working to their objective, they will be entitled to accept inter alia, that the provisions of the Physical Planning Act will be kept in mothballs. The second point is that commerce could operate without the interference of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development and his section 20 of the Bantu Laws Amendment Act. The third point is that, inter alia, the obligation to reduce Bantu Labour by five per cent annually in certain areas was suspended. The decentralization of industry would be advanced for economic and strategic reasons, but not for purely ideological reasons. The fifth point is that the development of the reserves would be encouraged and private white capital, skill and initiative would be permitted to assist in such development, not only on an agency basis. The sixth point is that job reservation under section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act would be done away with and replaced by more effective measures to maintain white workers’ living standards. The seventh point is that the training of Bantu for industry was no longer to be limited to the reserves and the border areas.
Now, Sir, I know that many people may have doubts about a higher growth rate for South Africa. I know the hon. the Minister is one. They may have doubts about it in a world economic climate that is apparently definitely inflationary. I know that the latest report of the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation shows renewed inflationary pressure, and in the last 12 months the most pronounced general rise in prices throughout the world since the war in Korea 20 years ago. In this regard the American scene presents a particularly baffling picture, with a strong momentum towards inflation plus growing unemployment. Unemployment has been swollen to some extent by the growing number of those unemployable in a highly technological society. In fact, the question of inflation in the modern world appears to have moved away from the sphere of pure economics towards what is called a socio-economic mix. There may be various reasons for that. It may be the power of the voice of labour. It may be the power of the trade unions. There are a number of possible reasons. One thing is quite clear, namely that high expectations have become the order of the day. It would appear that no government that wishes to stay in power dares either to disappoint the worker, or what is more to the point, to demand that he should Live within his country’s means.
Paradoxically enough, South Africa’s inflationary pressure is also at this stage due mainly to a socio-economic mix. We have not been the victims of any large scale disruptive strike actions, but so scarce is skilled labour in this country that employers readily pay wages far above the minimum laid down by industrial agreement and agree to wage increases without much demure. But this labour scarcity, we all know, is a highly artificial one, created by the socio-political aims of this Government. Once we stop thinking in terms of a population of 34 million and start to visualize South Africa as a country of 20 million people, we would have taken the first step towards minimizing the threat of inflation.
The next step, I believe, is a crash training programme to equip the work force drawn from 20 million people for the jobs that are waiting for them. I know there is criticism when one speaks of a crash training programme, but are the mines not doing this sort of thing every day? Look what, for instance, the Dunlop factory had done with Bantu labour in Natal. We know that there are crash training programmes that are used in various parts of the world.
Do you want a crash training programme for the Bantu labourers or the Whites?
For Bantu labour, in essence. But we must not forget that it should go hand in hand with schemes for retraining white labour for more responsible jobs. Our main problem in this country is not to cut the consumption of goods and services to what 3 million can produce, but to produce as rapidly and efficiently as possible more goods and services. To my knowledge there is no shortage of any basic raw materials in South Africa. Where shortages in supply do exist, they can be laid almost always at the door of shortages of labour to produce the goods. Drawing more labour into the economy is of course not enough. It will also not solve our problems overnight. Productivity per man will still be the key factor in holding inflation in check. A strong bias towards inflation will prevail in any economy where productivity gains are less rapid than increases in money wage rates. I think this has been clearly demonstrated in the United States of America where in 1969 output per hour rose by less than 1 per cent, the second smallest increase since the end of World War II, since which the average has been roughly 3.3 per cent per annum.
I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am not a protagonist of longer working hours as the hon. gentleman seems to be. I believe that such an idea would run counter to the trend in most developed countries where shorter working hours and more time away from our unfortunately often very boring jobs, is the ideal. Furthermore, it would be a mere drop in the ocean if all the Whites would work a few hours longer. Higher productivity I believe is in the first instance the responsibility of management. The efficient use and training of labour must be priority No. 1 and is absolutely basic to the lowering of the cost structure in South Africa. But in present circumstances how much labour is available for us to train? How rewarding can such training be when the labour that is available is impermanent and so insecure that it is a miracle that our work force works as well as it does under present circumstances. It is useless to talk of growth for South Africa as long as our work force is sporadically and haphazardly trained, if at all, for many of the jobs that they are doing, or employed under conditions of impermanence and insecurity, grossly unsuited to the demands made upon it by a modern industrial state and for the most part totally unorganized in their dealings with employers and the white labour group.
In short our economy is based on inefficient and potentially unstable labour force. Our trained white workers give a very high degree of efficiency, but our untrained non-Whites cannot be regarded yet as efficient industrial workers. Potentially they are an unstable labour force at the present time. How many of these factory committees which the hon. the Minister made provision for when he was Minister of Labour are in existence and operating to-day? Will the hon. gentleman tell us?
Quite a number.
Yes, but it looks as though this is something which has been allowed to fall in disuse because of the lack of this Government’s courage to tackle the problem.
You said that you were not in favour of Bantu trade unions.
No, I am not. Emphatically I will say it again.
Then how are you going to …
I will say it again. Do not worry. I will come to that.
What about Douglas?
It is only when these inhibiting factors on the indispensable labour component and productive process are removed that we can talk of a higher growth rate without fear of inflation. I cannot over-emphasize the need for a change of outlook in our economy at the present time. Emphasis must be placed more on economic goals and not so much on the socio-economic mix. The latter will always play a part in our society. I know that. It is however the degree of emphasis that is of supreme importance. We are only beginning to realize now the cost of decentralization for socio-political ends. So long as we are burdened with extra capital and other costs involved in moving factories from established areas to the so-called border areas, so long will there be an extra inflation factor which is prevailing in our economy. I believe that the accent has got to be increasingly and perseveringly on raising output and not, as now, on cutting down on consumer purchases and on the pressure of demand on Government services, such as the Railways, the Post Office and the Public Service generally.
I know that there are others who have other fears connected with an increased growth rate. They do not think that we will have enough capital. They fear balance of payments problems. They are afraid we shall be short of labour and non-Whites will have to do some jobs that are being done by Whites at the present time. I dealt with those difficulties before in this House and elsewhere and I do not propose to deal with them again.
What about the Mitchell case?
I am coming to the Mitchell case. I want to tell that hon. Minister that Mr. Mitchell supports every word that I am saying. In view of the questions of this rather loquacious young Minister, I was interested particularly in the attitude of this hon. Minister towards our labour problems. He says that he favours immigration to relieve the problem. We also favour immigration to relieve the problem. I believe that there is only one difference between us in this regard. That difference is that, I think, we are thinking in terms of twice the number of immigrants this Government is bringing in to the country because we know what a contribution they can make to increased growth.
But of what quality will it be?
It could be very much higher if we were doing it. We should bring in especially, and that is why I emphasize it, immigrants from our countries of origin, or should I say our ancestral homelands. The hon. the Minister suggests that it is not for the Government alone to solve the manpower problem. He poses the question whether employers cannot make a greater contribution through more efficient organization and methods for the attainment of greater productivity. Clearly, he knows that this is merely scratching on the surface. He is afraid to take the plunge and advocate the training of more labour, save in the technical and upper professional classes. He speaks of taking what steps he can within the framework of Government policy. That is exactly where he falls down instead of going bravely forward.
Let us now ask ourselves what will be the hon. the Minister’s position if he were not controlled by Government ideology. What would the hon. gentleman’s position be in presenting his Budget, if he were in a position where he was controlling a labour force not subjected to all the various restrictions I have outlined, such as the Planning Act and the 5 per cent reduction of Bantu labour in certain important areas? Surely he would then be in exactly the same position as the Minister of Transport found himself. The Planning Act does not apply to the South African Railways. Apparently the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is not allowed to interfere with the Minister of Transport. Apparently no duty rests on the Minister of Transport to reduce the number of his Bantu employees by 5 per cent per year. Apparently he is allowed to train labour outside the border areas and the reserves. What would the hon. the Minister’s position be if that were the situation for the South African labour force? Then he would be able to consult with employer and employee organizations to reach agreement as to what jobs could be done by Whites and what jobs by non-Whites, as the demands for white labour increase. He would be able to replace Whites with the agreement of the employees concerned and of their organizations with suitably trained non-white labour. For the benefit of that hon. Minister I say “suitably trained non-white labour”. Because he would be anxious, like the Minister of Transport, to avoid friction between the races, he would not place non-Whites in charge of Whites. He world recognize, like the hon. the Minister of Railways does, that there are certain jobs which the white employees’ organizations would not permit to be filled with non-Whites. He could approach the problem with some confidence because he knows it has been going on for years on the Railways. He knows that thousands of Whites’ jobs have been opened to non-Whites by this Minister. He boasts of it. He knows that a large number of graded jobs have been opened to non-Whites. He knows there have been no strikes such as those of which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance spoke with such fear and trembling. He knows it has led to a more efficient organization. He knows that it has enabled the Minister to meet the demands for the increasing services of a growing economy.
I appreciate all the compliments.
I am going to invite that hon. Minister to join me before long.
Why should these general principles not be applied outside the Railway Administration? That is what I should like to know. Why should the ordinary industrialist and merchant in his own undertaking not be able to do what the hon. the Minister of Railways has been doing for years on the Railways? This side of the House believes there could be this sort of development in accordance with a policy which would recognize the desirability of maximum development within a framework of certain accepted fundamental principles. What should those accepted fundamental principles be? I believe we would be satisfied if it were accepted that whatever developments there were, there should be retained white leadership and control in the country. There should be the acceptance of residential and social separation and the avoidance of friction between the races. There should be the maintenance of improved living standards for all sections of the community. Particularly there should be the protection of the living standards and the position of the white worker in our economy. Lastly, there should be the acceptance of the fact that jobs in which non-white labour is to be used, are to be determined by a process of collective bargaining between employers’ and employees’ organizations particularly at the local level. In this connection I want to emphasize particularly that where bargaining is to take place, it is fatal to approach the necessary negotiations with fixed ideas of detail known already to the other side. The hon. the Minister knows that. I need not outline again the plans of this side of the House for the retraining of white workers that are to be replaced by non-Whites.
We have never heard those plans.
The hon. the Minister has not only heard them, he has even read it in: “The answer: You want it? We have it.” If I remember rightly, I gave him a copy myself.
We have heard a general statement, but you have never been specific.
Does the hon. gentleman really want me to settle down and tell him in which colleges and under which teachers? All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that I suggest we put this to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council as well. I will put my ideas and he can put his. Then perhaps he can explain why, when the hon. member for Hillbrow introduced a Bill for training of employees by certain industrialists, that side of the House voted against it. I have outlined the various aspects: The appeal tribunals under the Industrial Conciliation Act, the various guarantees, the application of the rate for the job. There were many other proposals which we have discussed in the past to protect the standard of living of the white worker against unfair competition and to prevent undesirable changes in our social structure. These proposals which I have outlined would obviously provide far greater protection for the white worker than the sort of thing that is being done at the present time by the Minister of Labour with his labour force.
It is difficult to see what the objections could be to the proposals that I am making. They seem to be two-fold. The first group of objections seems to be that they would move our economy away from the ultimate ideal of separate independent Bantustans, carrying the majority of the Bantu population, and white areas in which there are no more than equal numbers of Whites and non-Whites. That is the ideal, Sir, although all realists in South Africa to-day appreciate that that policy is impossible of fulfilment. The objection against our plans is that we are moving away from the ideal. I believe that objection can be disregarded. Why must we be called upon to make sacrifices and be called upon to accept lower standards of living in favour of a myth, a dream, the foot of the rainbow which we will never reach? And it becomes even less and less capable of achievement because the very restrictions the Government imposes in the name of the policy limit our growth to a point where we cannot afford that policy. The second fear is that the labour pattern will so change that the white man will loss control in South Africa. That was emphasized by the Deputy Minister of Finance in a very verkrampte speech earlier this week. In that speech he sought to bolster his argument by suggesting that it would be impossible for the Whites to retain a position of leadership because there would be no moral basis for that attitude. But in doing so he, of course, conveniently overlooked the approach of his own Government to the Cape Coloured people. lnterjections.] Did I hear the hon. the Minister say “Hear, hear” again?
That is right. He overlooked the approach of his own Government to the Cape Coloured people, an approach which is subject to exactly the same criticisms as those which he sought to level against this side of the House in respect of the Bantu. Surely, if he can justify his policy towards the Cape Coloured people on a moral basis, then he must also be able to justify the attitude of this side of the House to non-Whites generally. In a vain attempt to suggest that the policy of his side of the House is more acceptable, he conjures up fears of strikes because there would not be a safety valve, as he called it, and he prophesied disaster. Well, Sir, perhaps a subsequent speaker can tell me what the safety valve is in the Government’s policy for the Cape Coloured people? Where is that safety valve? If there is none, and he must admit that there is none, why will there not be disaster if the Cape Coloured people are subjected to that sort of policy? If he can defend his policy for the Coloured people, why cannot he accept our policy towards other non-Whites? It is certainly more enlightened than his. But what, after all, is the safety valve which this Government is offering the Bantu? Where and what is that safety valve, the safety valve which they say makes the activities of the Minister of Transport safe? Is it that those Bantu can join the ranks of the poverty-stricken Bantu living in underdeveloped reserves, reserves which are going to remain underdeveloped unless we can afford to spend far more on developing them than this Government can ever do? Furthermore, how does it apply to the many millions of Bantu living permanently in the white areas without any hope of ever reaching the reserves? Where is the safety valve for them? Sir, it is an imaginery safety valve; they are offering no safety valve—all they are offering is a dead end, a dead end in which pressure is building up so fast that explosions may easily follow which will disrupt our whole economy. We, Sir, have a safety valve; we have a safety valve in our federal proposals, a safety valve where it is most needed—where these Bantu live and die very largely in the white areas.
I can think of only one policy likely to cause greater disruption than the policy of this Government and that is the policy of the hon. member for Houghton. In one fell swoop she wants to dismantle the whole machinery, conventional and statutory, established over the years to protect the white worker from unfair competition from the part of non-Whites living at lower living standards. And she wants to do that regardless of the views of the organized white workers’ organizations …
And you also.
… established, inter alia, to protect their living standards. There is our old friend again who says, “And you also”. He ought to know that there are only two people in this House who have threatened the trade unions—the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Houghton. These are the only two who have done that. We have always said that we shall work with the co-operation of the trade unions. The hon. Minister’s record in respect of trade unions goes back a long time. The other day I read out to him passages from what he said about Collective bargaining during 1942 and 1943. I know he is now scuttling back as fast he can; over the last few weeks he has been becoming very attentive to the views of the trade unions in what he said. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what disruption there will be in the South African labour situation if the hon. member for Houghton were allowed to apply her policy? Strikes do not worry her, not even strikes on a racial basis. What chaos would result and what utter irresponsibility! Hers is the only policy which I think is more dangerous than that of this Government. Other proposals of hers are even more dangerous, but I shall draw a veil over these. If her policies were to be carried out, the South African economy would be brought to a standstill in double quick time. Nobody with any knowledge of labour relations in this country can even consider the proposals she makes.
At least the hon. the Minister and I have found common ground and I am surprised that he does not appreciate my appreciation of what he is doing on the Railways. Acceptance of the Government’s policy at the present time must lead to a slower rate of growth than our policy. I have indicated before, in this House and elsewhere, that if our rate of economic growth only approximated those of Europe then, because our population is growing faster than theirs, our standards of living will not rise as rapidly. Once we start lagging behind in the rise in living standards, we run the risk of racial friction in South Africa. There is something else we must look at. Slower rates of growth mean less economic strength, and less economic strength means less security for our children and for successive generations in South Africa. I believe that there is no doubt that the Government is going to have to review its position and review it on the lines I have outlined. The Minister of Labour is going to have to come nearer to the Minister of Transport. They shall have to come to some agreement; they shall have to reach an understanding as to why certain things done on the Railways should not also be done outside the Railways. Otherwise I am quite sure only one thing is going to happen—the Minister of Transport is going to find himself too enlightened for this Government and is going to find himself on this side of the House.
This Budget fails utterly to meet the problems of manpower with which we are faced in South Africa. Government ideology has left the Minister of Finance little or no room at all in which to manoeuvre. The result is that his Budget is half-hearted, half-baked and threatens our future prosperity and the security of our country, a country which could offer such high living standards to all our people that in time we could see developing here what I have chosen to call “the compassionate society” in South Africa. Certainly, Sir, we would see greater security for future generations and for white civilization in South Africa and on a much firmer basis than under the policies of the present Government. That is why I support the amendment moved by this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I think the time has arrived for us to penetrate to the truth in regard to the labour policy of the United Party. We have now listened here to a speech in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had unlimited time, but in which he did not have the opportunity to deal with statements of policy which were made by one of his colleagues and which are diametrically opposed to what they are propagating here. [Interjections.] Over the past few years, but especially over these past few months, we in this country have experienced agitation, the form of which is actually unknown to us, agitation experienced on a very wide front with regard to manpower. If one analyses this manpower agitation of recent times, one finds that in its very essence it is primarily being fanned by the United Party, and it is being fanned from their Press organs right through to the Chambers which they control. When one wants to analyse it more deeply, one finds that this whole manpower agitation has one single objective only, and that is to destroy our existing social and political pattern in South Africa. The rapid development of our country has afforded these people a wonderful opportunity and wonderful relief. This wonderful development of the country has afforded them that opportunity for which they have now been waiting for years, for politically the United Party does not see its way clear to taking over the reins of government. Despite the few gains it has achieved, it merely has 46 seats as against the present 117 of this side of the House, despite those attempts. This is quite a difference, which cannot simply be wished away or passed off in a noisy manner. But the United Party is setting its hopes on one thing, i.e. that it need not destroy separate development at the polls in the first place; it is setting its hopes on its being able to destroy separate development through economic factors and then to have it replaced by its own integration policy. That is what is being hoped for, and these economic factors have to be backed up by agitation on a very large scale, such as we have at the moment. Hence the fact that the hon. member for Parktown, who was the main speaker opposite, said that the economy would break the Government; the Government was trying to bend the economy, he said, but we would not manage to do so. He said the economy would break the Government, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said a moment ago that the time had arrived for getting rid of the Government’s pattern of thought. Now, in a democratic country an opposition is certainly entitled to have such objectives, but if it has such objectives and states them, I think the public, too, is certainly entitled to know what it really seeks to achieve by means of those objectives. In this case, I think the white workers of South Africa are entitled to know exactly what the United Party has in view and how they want to achieve it.
Surely, the Leader did say how.
I shall deal with the Leader and stipulate those things precisely, and I hope you will still have enough shadow Ministers to investigate the matter further. I think the picture which the public want and to which they are entitled, is the picture of what the consequences of the United Party’s labour policy is going to be for them and for the worker.
What are we actually experiencing in this regard? Our experience at present is that the United Party with its co-operative unofficial English Press has opened the flood gates with its propaganda slogan of "the more efficient use of the available non-white labour”, and in this regard the Leader of the Opposition made a speech on Thursday evening and today he repeated to us lengthy passages taken from that speech. That speech was described by his Press as a great speech, as a trend-setting speech. This is the speech in which he actually pleaded on Thursday evening for a revolutionary change in South Africa’s labour pattern, a revolutionary change which could make South Africa a second japan. How are we to become a second Japan, according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? In the first place, we must not, as the hon. member also said here to-day, think in terms of 3 million people; we must think in terms of 20 million people. Sir, we have now been hearing this 3 million story from time to time, and it is often toeing presented in this naive manner as though these 3 million people are the only ones who have to produce, the only ones who have to administer this country, as though the rest of the 20 million—in other words, the Blaoks—are not contributing their full share in this country in the manufacturing industry and in the agricultural industry or wherever. What about the thousands upon thousands of Bantu, Coloureds and Indians who are doing professional work in this country—teachers, doctors, and others who are serving this country and helping to carry the 20 million? After all, it is not only the 3 million Whites who are carrying the 20 million. But let us see what is actualy the crux of the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, this speech which is supposed to bring about a revolutionary change in our labour pattern, now that we have been forced to this discovery that we have 20 million people in this country.
The hon. member also said in his speech— and I am going to repeat it, because, more or less, this is also what he said here to-day—
The question in this regard is, what are we to do? In this speech of his the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, as he also said here to-day, that we had to have a high growth rate. At the meeting here in Cape Town he said that we had to have a 10 per cent growth rate and, in addition to that, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also made another very important point; he said—
These were his words, as reported. Sir, that our economic strength cannot safely toe maintained by a growth rate as high as 10 per cent, is not merely a political opinion; the chairman of the Economic Advisory Council said in a statement recently issued toy him that if we had a growth rate of per cent or more, inflationary trends and developments would be inevitable in South Africa.
Under this set-up.
He said that our economic stability and prosperity would be given the death-blow if our growth rate were 7 per cent and higher, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has other vistas for South Africa. I think the time has arrived for our country to obtain clarity as to precisely what those vistas are going to look like; the workers want to know how this “crash training programme”, which is allegedly going to make South Africa a second Japan, is going to work.
Let us, in the first place, compare this with the policy of the National Party. The National Party is not against the training and employment of non-Whites. That is our policy; we are doing it, whether it is in the Railways or whether it falls under my jurisdiction. But the National Party and the National Government believe that for the sake of good race relations such employment may not take place in an uncontrolled manner. We believe that it has to take place in a controlled manner, which is the case at present. Whilst we believe that, we believe that the white worker needs statutory protection by way of job reservation, but, more than that, that the Whites should not be ousted from their employment toy non-Whites, that Whites and non-Whites should not be working together in the same employment situation and that no white person should find himself in a position where he is working under a non-white person. Thanks to this attitude adopted in this policy, we are enjoying industrial peace in South Africa to-day; thanks to this attitude we have unprecedented industrial peace, and in addition to that we have no unemployment. We do have labour shortages at the moment, and it is on account of that that the Opposition is now launching its attack. Now the Opposition wants to wipe out these shortages with a “crash training programme”. I think we should obtain clarity as to how the Opposition wants to wipe out these shortages. I am now going to mention specific cases to you, Sir, and I hope the hon. shadow Ministers will then be able to give us a reply. The Department of Labour makes a manpower survey every two years. That manpower survey shows us the number of workers in every sphere as well as the shortages. From the latest manpower survey made last year it appears that in the engineering industry, the industry with the greatest number of artisans, there were 81,000 artisans last year as against 79.0 in 1967. But, what is important, there was still a shortage of 6,000 artisans in the engineering industry. Now I should like to know from the Opposition whether Bantu should be trained by way of the “crash programme” to fill those 6,000 vacancies in the engineering industry. I should be pleased if the hon. Opposition could give me a reply. There is more information which I want. We must obtain clarity now, for these are fundamental matters.
If you accept the recommendations of the Straszacker Commission, this will not be necessary.
The time for cunning is past. The hon. members talks about fundamental matters, but these are fundamental matters, and I am still going to mention quite a number of fundamental matters to the hon. member. Let me now mention to the hon. Opposition the case of the apprentices. Should Bantu apprentices be trained in the engineering industry to fill these vacancies? Should they be trained for that purpose? Can the hon. shadow Minister tell us this? [Interjections.] Now let us take the motor-car industry. There are 22,000 artisans and mechanics working in this industry, and 97 per cent of them are Whites. Do hon. members know what the manpower position is there? There is a shortage of 2.0 mechanics in the motor-car industry. Now I should like to know from the hon. Opposition whether they are going to train those 2,000 men by means of their “training programme”. Are these 2,000 vacancies to be filled by means of this “crash training programme”?
These are Basie’s tricks.
Cunning is not going to be of any use now. The hon. members will have to face these matters squarely. Now I want to know from the hon. Opposition, who are so concerned about the trade unions, whether they are going to meet the shortage of 2,000 in the motor mechanic industry through employing Bantu. The trade unions have objections to such a step, and what is their attitude going to be now?
You are using them already in the border industries.
They are being employed in a controlled manner, and due regard is being had to the views of the trade unions. Let me put another question to hon. members. We have a shortage of trained people in the mining industry. There is a shortage of samplers and of ventilation officers. Should we employ in those jobs these Bantu whom the United Party wants to train by way of its “crash training scheme”? Let us hear? Not a sound out of them. Let us deal with the Public Service now. In the Public Service we do not have to deal with trade unions, and the hon. members can therefore not hide behind the trade unions in this respect.
We are coming to him. Let us take the Public Service. In the Public Service we have a shortage of clerical staff and of professional officers. Does the United Party want us to fill those vacancies with Bantu by making use of their “crash training programme”? Should we appoint them to those positions? Let me take the building trade in the Transvaal. In that Province skilled work is reserved for Whites, and a splendid increase took place there, i.e. from 9,000 in 1962 to 14,000 in 1969. In spite of these increases, there is a shortage of 4,600 skilled workers.
What is happening in Newcastle under this policy?
No, cunning will be of no use. It is not going to help the hon. Opposition out of this situation. Tell me now whether you are going to fill these 4,600 vacancies in this skilled trade in the Transvaal with the Bantu whom you want to train through your “training programme”. [Interjections.] No, the hon. members will not be able to get away with cunning. All this floundering which hon. members are seeing here to-day, is not going to help the United Party to weather the storm. The people and the public are very tired of this now. They are tired of hearing the United Party blowing hot and cold, as they are doing now. These contradictory statements are caused by two things only. On the one hand they want to break down the traditional pattern—they also want to satisfy their English-language Press—and, on the other hand, they do not hesitate to resort to politics of the most shameless kind, as the hon. member for South Coast did. It is the same people who have a “crash training programme”, to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred, who speak in this House as the hon. member for South Coast did. I have here the Hansard of the hon. member for South Coast which he wants to use in Klip River. On 5th August, 1970, the hon. member for South Coast said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, Col. 1118) —
The noise made by hon. members opposite will not put me off my stroke.
That is plain dishonesty.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for South Coast entitled to say “that is plain dishonesty”?
Yes, it is.
No, the hon. member is not entitled to do that. He must withdraw it.
I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
I want to go on quoting what the hon. member said, and I do not know whether this, too, will be described as dishonesty on my part. Later in his speech he said the following—
I do not know whether the hon. member thinks this is dishonest, too. That is the position, and instead of the hon. member being repudiated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here to-day … [Interjections.] When I have finished talking, the hon. member will have an opportunity to correct this speech. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not do so. Once the hon. member for South Coast has corrected it, he should just tell us whether he is going to use this Hansard in Klip River or whether he is going to use the one he is arguing about now. We should like to know this. We did not get a repudiation of this speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about labour to-day, and he had the opportunity of repudiating the standpoint taken by the hon. member for South Coast as it was reported here and as it stands recorded in Hansard. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a greater responsibility. His task was to expel this shadow Minister, as Mr. Heath expelled Powell, if he were convinced that his course was the right one. However, one must not expect such a courageous reaction from the United Party.
Why did you misread it?
There is Hansard; it is going to speak in future. However, what did we get from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke the other day? Did he, at that stage, repudiate the speech by the hon. member for South Coast at the first opportunity that offered itself? No, he came forward with an absurd request, i.e. that the Minister of Transport, the best Minister of Transport South Africa has ever had, should resign. Can you imagine anything more foolish and absurd than that? This was only done with one single end in view, i.e. to divert the attention from all this floundering, and because he did not have the courage to repudiate the hon. member for South Coast.
It was not only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who revealed a lack of courage. The shadow Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Yeoville, wrote an article entitled “Labour is the No. 1 Problem”. All he had to say about the hon. member for South Coast in that article, was the following—
No repudiation. Then the hon. member went on to deal with other matters. A party which blows hot and cold like that, does not deserve the respect of the country. That is why I say that that standpoint of the “crash programme” is being bruited abroad, but at the same time the Mitchells are permitted to state their standpoint. This really is something shocking in our politics. It is that side which is so frequently holding forth on the credibility of Ministers. What is much more important in this regard, is the political credibility of a party. The political credibility of the United Party is at stake. Let me tell the United Party that the attitude which is being adopted by the hon. member for South Coast and which has not been repudiated by his Leader, is bringing the United Party to the stage where it has destroyed its own political credibility.
You have no credibility.
Order! What did the hon. member for Durban (Point) say?
I said they had no credibility.
In that case the hon. member must withdraw it immediately.
I withdraw, Sir.
It is not only this doubletalk between the hon. member for South Coast and the Leader of the Opposition.
May I ask a question? I want to ask the Minister whether he and Dr. Verwoerd were honest in what they told this House about what they were going to do to the Coloured vote.
My standpoint has always been clear and known. This reaction should be very significant to everybody. They do not have the courage to correct this standpoint. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not have the courage to repudiate the member for South Coast, for the United Party wants to have the best of both worlds. That is the reason why the Leader of the Opposition does not want to repudiate the member for South Coast. He wants to have the best of both worlds. On the one hand he wants to satisfy the liberalists and the dear old English Press and, on the other hand, he wants to go to Klip River with that speech made by the hon. member for South Coast in order to show the people there how wonderfully he is fighting for the rights of the Whites. But, Sir, it is not only a matter of double-talk between the Leader of the Opposition and the member for South Coast; the Leader of the Opposition also indulges in double-talk on labour matters.
You are clutching at a straw.
Order! The hon. member for Pinelands must contain himself.
In this very speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in Cape Town, he said that these “discriminatory laws” had to be abolished now, for they could not guarantee our existence.
I did not say that.
The hon. the Leader did say that. I read it out to him. [Interjections.] Hon. members should rather listen now; they cannot fight the election with nothing but noise during speeches; they must face up to the facts. He said—
Where did I say all of them had to be repealed?
The hon. member said economic and military strength were necessary. That part of the speech is in the same spirit which the Leader of the Opposition revealed when, in reply to my question in this House of Assembly at the beginning of the year, he said across the floor of the House that job reservation would be repealed. The hon. member told me this across the floor of this House —in Hansard, Col. 477—i.e. that job reservation would be repealed. But this is the same Opposition which wants to do this, the same Opposition which adopted a different attitude the other day when in reply to my question the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told me here that they would not allow Whites to work under non-Whites. I recall his having said this to me the other day, by way of interjection.
Now, I should be pleased if the United Party would tell us in this debate how they intend to amend and remove these discriminatory measures, how they intend to abolish job reservation and how they are going to prevent, according to their own policy, Whites from working under non-Whites. I want the United Party to tell us how they are going to implement it under this policy of theirs. In this “You want it” policy there is not a single word which guarantees this. On the contrary, these millions of non-Whites whom the United Party now wants to train by means of its “crash training programme”, will, in the absence of job reservation, make it inevitable that Whites will work under non-Whites in South Africa. There is nothing in the written policy of the United Party to prevent this. That is why I say that the time has arrived for the United Party to state its policy and the consequences of its policy to the country in an honest and frank manner.
In the course of this debate they will have the opportunity to tell us clearly, with reference to the industries and trades I mentioned, into what sphere they intend to push the Bantu whom they want to train by means of their “crash training programme”. We want to know. We want to know from the United Party how, under its “crash training programme”, it is going to prevent Whites from working under non-Whites in South Africa. These things are fundamental. It is no use running away from them.
What about the Transkei?
It is no use talking about the Transkei now. We are now talking about white South Africa. Hon. members must tell me how we can maintain this policy in white South Africa. The public and the white workers are entitled to get a decision on these vital matters. If the United Party refuses to give a decision on these pertinent and fundamental matters, then it is misleading the public with contradictory statements, varying from the Leader of the Opposition’s Japanese Utopia to the member for South Coast’s “the Bantu are good for nothing”. If the United Party does not give a decision on these fundamental matters, it is intentionally misleading the public in South Africa. The United Party should realize that it has reached the point where it stands accused of blatant opportunism and a total want of political credibility. If the United Party still regards its politics as being credible, then I think the time has now arrived for it to state its standpoint clearly and unequivocally.
The question is whether the United Party has the will and the courage to do so. But it will be judged on that basis. In the future the United Party will be judged by its will and its courage to state clearly in this House its convictions, together with all the consequences thereof. This is what the United Party is being called upon to do. The National Party is prepared to say what the consequences of its policy are, and we are now waiting for the United Party also to tell South Africa what the consequences of their policy are going to be.
Mr. Speaker, more than four million words have already flown to and fro across the floor of the House since we began here a month ago. This particular debate has now already been in progress for a few days. I have listened attentively to it, and in particular to the speech of the hon. the Minister, who has just resumed his seat. I must, however, say right at the onset that I think it is the poorest display that we have had from him in a long while. The hon. the Minister speaks of jumping around, but he was really doing an egg-dance such as we have never seen before. To camouflage his lack of a labour policy he lapsed into a torrent of words. He almost landed up in a state of self-hypnosis. All that actually happened was that the hon. the Minister asked a lot of the “do you still hit your wife” questions, which we know so well. He already has the answers because he supplies them himself. Then, of course, there was a little manna from heaven, apparently as a result of what the hon. member for South Coast was supposed to have said. This indicates how bankrupt they are on that side of the House as regards policy.
For the last week there has not been a single constructive thought from that side. In every newspaper of theirs that one opens, this business is simply exaggerated. All the hon. member said was that non-Whites are being used for tasks for which they do not have a sense of responsibility, because they do not receive sufficient training for those tasks. [Interjections.] I just want to show how the contact of the newspapers with that side of the House, a contact which has always been so good, has deteriorated. Before we began with this sitting, we heard from all the Nationalist Party newspapers about the great bombshell the Prime Minister was going to drop here. That dynamic bombshell subsequently proved to be just a small wet patch.
To-day they wrote in the newspapers again: “Labour: new plan of the Minister.” That was front page news. Now we ask that hon. Minister: Where is the new plan we heard of? All he did was to speak of a “crash programme”. Apparently it is now disturbing him tremendously, but this “crash programme” is occurring all the time. What of the mining industry? Every year the gold mines employ 400,000 non-Whites who have absolutely no industrial sophistication and who cannot even handle a spade. Are they then not trained? That is what we have in mind.
But now this hon. Minister does not want to tell us how he differs from the hon. Minister of Transport, because here we have the basic problem. Apparently that hon. Minister is quite beyond the law. He may do as he likes. He is not subject to the principles of the various Acts applicable to the industrialists. At Langlaagte, when this hon. Minister had to come along and help, someone asked him: “Why is the Physical Planning Act and all the other legislation not applicable to the Minister of Transport?” He then replied: “No, that is another matter. The Railways are of national importance. They must be kept going.”
He also speaks of job reservation and of the protection they are giving the Whites by means of job reservation. I indicated to him on a previous occasion, for example, that the cutting out of garments in the garment workers group was exclusively reserved for Whites eight years ago. I challenge him to deny that in the Transvaal at present only 6 per cent of the people doing that work are Whites. Is that the kind of protection he is giving the Whites? He also asked us how we would ensure that non-Whites could climb the industrial ladder and that Whites would nevertheless not have to work under their supervision. Here I want the attention of the hon. the Minister of Community Development for a moment. In Vereeniging there is a very large organization in which the Government has an indirect interest. In this organization they have three mills, all with the same spectrum of work types. But what did they do? In two of them there are only Whites working, and in the third there are, so to speak, only non-Whites. That is how it is being done at the moment. This hon. Minister does not have the slightest idea about what is happening in our industries. He is living in a kind of fool’s paradise where he is altogether isolated from what is happening in practice. Of course, he never got round to the big challenge that my hon. Leader levelled at him, because he had a previously prepared speech. In it there was no mention of this bombshell that we all expected. That speech consisted solely of a lot of hypothetical questions. The challenge that my hon. Leader levelled at him, about whether this Government would be prepared to accept limited objectives, he never referred to. He ignored it altogether. But the hon. the Leader of the House is continually making notes. Perhaps he will give us that reply.
The standpoint that my hon. Leader stated, I should like to supplement, but from a somewhat different point of view. There is one important development in South Africa which I think we, as leaders of the people, dare not ignore. A new group of people have come onto the scene. These are our young South Africans. These young South Africans have an altogether new approach in connection with some of our political problems. Here we are faced with a third power in the making. Here we have an entirely new dimension. These young South Africans will play a particularly important role in our politics. Many of these standpoints as stated by that side of the House, the kind of standpoint that has just been stated again by the hon. the Minister, they will regard as political cobwebs. They will flick them away. We are faced here with a lot of archaic, academic, outworn standpoints which are no longer relevant to this new South Africa. As a result of the policy of the Party these young South Africans are being supplemented daily—and they are right—by what I call the new South Africans. These are the immigrants. The immigrants are not only supplementing the young South Africans as far as numbers are concerned, but also as far as ideas are concerned. These new South Africans are going to bring about a tremendous political revolution in South Africa. These people will choose that party which will be better able to articulate their own interests and ideas. To-day I just want to indicate a few of these points so that it may be seen what, in my opinion, the thinking of these young and new South Africans is.
One of the great points of dispute which has existed throughout the years, since we obtained our political consciousness is, of course, that relating to Afrikaans-English relationships. We have argued about that throughout the years. It was indeed the realization of the necessity for the two groups to stand together, the necessity for consiliation, that gave rise to the birth, 60 years ago, of this Party. But there were people who did not see it this way. These people had a kind of apartheid approach. Even in those days they wanted to bring a form of White apartheid into being. These are people who to-day still display a strange form of separation psychosis. They always want to divide up everything. The people who stood for separation then were initially successful. There is no doubt about that. But to-day there is a change setting in as far as these young South Africans are concerned. They are no longer interested in fighting the Anglo-Boer war all over again. They have an entirely different approach to this question of Afrikaans-English relationships. These changes are setting in, notwithstanding the kind of education the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and some of his kindred spirits revelled in so much, which was, on their own admission, aimed at ensuring that all our children became good young Nationalists. Notwithstanding that kind of indoctrination a tremendous change has now come about. Let me show how this is being manifested. Recently at the University of Pretoria a study was made on behalf of the F.A.K. Here we find for the first time young Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners at the University of Pretoria no longer describing themselves as Afrikaners, neither as Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. They describe themselves merely as South Africans. By taking this small step in designating themselves politically they have already taken a gigantic political leap.
What was the majority in Rissik?
The hon. the Minister must give me a chance to make my speech. It is generally accepted that the nation experiences the same kind of growth tendencies as the individual. Here we have once more an important factor, i.e. that the South African nation is growing up. It is becoming emotionally mature. As a nation it has left the puberty stage behind. One always finds that as a nation matures this concept and the sentiment of nationalism are taken over and assimilated into a much larger, maturer and more comprehensive emotion. This is what we call patriotism or love of country. This is what is happening here. This Afrikaner nationalism, of which there is so much talk, is being absorbed into a much greater sentiment, that of patriotism, as a result of foreign pressure and as a result of the maturity of our own nation. Those who always want to keep everything within narrow confines, who always want to keep us small and sectional, must please remember that it is an evolutionary lesson that those who want to be narrow die out. There is no future for the herrenvolk concept. Ironically enough the Aryans, whom we have heard so much about through the years, can be found in the north of India to-day, if they still exist.
What about your permanent White leadership?
General Hertzog spoke of two streams, and in his time it was correct to do so. But if two streams flow in the same direction for long enough they will eventually converge, and there is surely no one who wants to imply that the two streams are flowing in opposite directions. This is already happening. There is also a third group emerging, and they are being supplemented by the immigrants who are entering the country from outside. This group is establishing its own cultural standards, and it is these cultural standards that are eventually going to be the cultural standards of South Africa. Here there is a process of amalgamation, of osmosis taking place, and no politician will succeed in preventing it. It is going to have tremendous long-term effects on our political situation. We on this side of the House have always realized this; that is why we have continually endeavoured to break down walls and to build bridges. That is why we have always said, let us bring our children together, because how will we ever succeed in developing one true national pride and one true nation if we separate our children artificially? Yet that is what this Government is doing, and look at the consequences! If we look to-day at the A.S.B. on the one hand, and at Nusas on the other, we find that they are like inhabitants of two different planets. They are not capable of any meaningful dialogue; they are people who come from opposite parts of the world. That is the kind of division that is being brought about by that side of the House. The young people and the new South Africans realize to-day that only this side of the House can form a bridge for the amalgamation of our people. Look at our political representatives at local level, at territorial level and even at parliamentary level, and show me any other political party that is more representative of both population groups than this side. The party opposite merely speaks about it; with them it is just lip service. For us it is not necessary to bring somebody like the hon. the Minister of Sport in here to show that we have the support of the other language group. Throughout the years hon. members opposite have maintained this principle of separation. A few years ago we had a sudden change of front, and now suddenly they are the champions of national unity. But the young South Africans do not believe them. The change came too suddenly. They still regard the party opposite simply as the wolf parading in sheep’s clothing. The Government also has no moral right to insist on true national unity, and why? Because most of its leaders are still members of a secret organization which, through its own constitution, forces them to promote only the interests of one section of the people. No group that is linked in such a way to one section can have the broad approach that is necessary. Where national unity is necessary, the new and young South Africans will come to us and not to that side.
But there is yet another level, i.e. that the Government has succeeded in solating us. To begin with, there is a form of cultural isolation. Our young people cannot obtain the books, the films, the cultural material and reading matter which is freely available throughout the world. They do not insist on pornography, but they insist on an opportunity to establish their own cultural standards. Our young people want television because they are entitled to it. since it is one of the most important cultural media of our time. It will give them a point of contact with people overseas. But the Government tells us we are to immature; therefore we dare not get it; we will first have to grow up. According to all the opinion polls held. 80 per cent of the people in South Africa are in favour of television.
Why do you not come into power and give it to them?
But here we have a Government with the audacity and the arrogance to say: “You shall not get it; we have decided that you are not yet fit for it.”
And then there is isolation in the sphere of international sport, and our young people are piqued about that because they want to take part in sport. They blame the Government for the isolation that has come about in sport. Was it not a previous Prime Minister of that party who said that if a few Maori’s came along here to play rugby this would bring about the downfall of the White civilization? And members of the Cabinet, who are still sitting there opposite, must have had a share in that decision. It is their leaders who said that if we send a team to the Olympic Games they must live separately, drive around separately and wear separate flags. Now that we have been kicked out of sport they come along and say that it is overseas countries that are trading in politics. But the Burger said: “What you sow within, you shall reap without.” And that is precisely what is happening here.
And then there is isolation in the field of international relationships. Here we had a series of incidents: The American aircraft carrier, Japanese jockeys, Chinese infants. Mr.. Speaker, I have never yet seen such clumsiness. Here we have a Government suffering from masochistic tendencies, a Government displaying the martyrdom syndrome. They actually go out of their way to torture themselves. They are so clumsy in respect of international affairs that this is the only conclusion one can come to. I say that the young and new South Africans want contact with the world outside, and for that they see us as the only channel. The outward movement should have been started half a century ago, but then it was that side of the House that opposed us on every point. And to-day they want to come and speak of an outward movement. The only party that will lead our youth and our new South Africans towards contact with the outside world is this side. We shall lead them out of the international twilight into the light.
But there is still a third sphere in which our young South Africans also feel aggrieved, the sphere of the Government’s high-handedness, its authoritarian approach. After all, here is a Government that cannot leave anything alone; it must control everything. It must include everything in a law. They have never understood the old. well-known saying that the best Government is the one that governs the least. Just look now at what is happening in all the various spheres. In the social sphere everything must be incorporated in laws, even the most intimate human relationships. Everyone must be pushed into a cage. We must have a colour register. In this way we create the Sandra Laings, bringing the resentment of the whole world down upon us. In the economic sphere it is the same. Where you erect your factory, who you employ and what you pay them, all this is handled by the Government. On coming to the political sphere we have exactly the same thing. We have detention without trials. We have Boss clauses, and here we have the idiosyncrasy that the Government that wants to fight the evils of Communism is incorporating those same evils in its own system. And to ensure that our resistance decreases, a state organization such as the S.A.B.C. is harnessed to indoctrinate us. Amongst us the S.A.B.C. has become a kind of drug to make sure that our resistance will be decreased. A State organ such as the S.A.B.C. is engaged in a kind of brain-washing. We as tax payers must pay for our own spiritual violation in South Africa. The young people reject this approach. The young people see the State as subservient to the nation, to the people. The young people will come to our support in ever increasing numbers, because they see that we are the people who are better integrated into their own approach.
Then we come to race relationships. Here the young people are going to make a greater contribution, and here they are going to bring about a greater change of front than in all these other spheres. Here again there is an altogether new approach. The young people realize that all these old myths are antiquated; they want to do things in a new way. There is not the fear reaction there always was. The Government can no longer frighten them as before. They are not afraid of the non-Whites. When the hon. member for Langlaagte, in a moment of anxiety, recently came to the fore again with this kind of bastardization placard propaganda, he not only obtained fewer votes, but his own newspapers then also squared accounts with him. But the second important point in the approach of our young and new South Africans is that they no longer believe in this old matter, as the Government has always presented it, that one either has apartheid or integration, with nothing in between. They know, after all, that it is nonsense. It is surely a polarization of the problem; it is surely a simplification. If I accept that, I could just as well say that people are either long or short, fat or thin, rich or poor, or that they are either clever or stupid. Sir, for 300 years we did not have one of these approaches. For 300 years we have followed the middle path of South Africa. They are on stray paths, in the same way that the Progressive Party wants to turn off to one side. [Interjections.] We shall find increasingly that the young people of South Africa—and this is where I want to associate myself with my hon. Leader—will say that we should seize upon the reality of the South African situation. That is what this side of the House is doing. We are not on a wild chase to the end of the rainbow. We want to deal with the problems of South Africa as they exist at present. The federal idea that we advocate will make an increasingly greater impression on the young people, because what does it do? The federal system, after all, enables one to advocate that form of political decentralization that is necessary, but it also makes it possible to have a symbiosis in the upper levels, enabling us to ensure peaceful political development.
What the hon. members opposite apparently forget is that there is just one economic foundation in South Africa. Everyone, from Tomlinson to any economist who has ever written about it, accepts that there is one economic foundation for South Africa. But that side of the House says, “No, we cannot be together”. They therefore want to use this one foundation, and then they want to build a different house there for every race and group. Surely, like the tower of Pisa, they will go in different directions. No, nothing like that has ever stood. The Progressive Party on the other hand says, “No, we accept that there is one economic foundation; we do not want a house; we just want a nice big hall, then we will have a great deal of fun”. Let me put it another way; There is, after all, a very simple thing, like a chicken’s egg, which has already existed in its present form for a few billion years. That side of the house says: “We do not want an egg that has yellow and white in it”. They now want to make two eggs; the one must only have white in it, and the other only yellow. I now ask this question: What can one do with such eggs? They are sterile; they are unproductive. They have only one use, and that is when hon. members opposite and their kindred spirits attend Hertzog group meetings. The Progressive Party says that they accept the fact that we must be one egg, but they say that the white and the yellow must be mixed. Sir, surely that kind of egg is a bad one and is also of no use. It only has one use—and for that purpose it is even better—and that is when hon. members on the other side attend meetings of the Hertzogites. Sir, we accept the realities of life, not because we would like to have them that way; we accept a chicken’s egg as it has been through all the years: A portion of it is white; a portion of it is yellow; these portions are separate and yet complimentary; they work together. That is the only kind of egg that has ever meant anything. Sir, it seems to me that my time has elapsed.
The hon. member who has just sat down, told us in the last part of his speech why the youth will vote for us, and that is because they look like an egg! I want to tell the hon. member that since the days of Sakkies Fourie and Daan Friedman, I have never listened to greater rubbish than what I listened to this afternoon. But I agree with him; we have to deal with a new youth, a new dimension, and I shall tell him why the new youth will reject their party, namely because that party is the most dishonest party South Africa has ever had. Sir, I am going to test it now. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) wanted to send a White soccer team from here to play against a black soccer team in Swaziland. I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether he agrees with that. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with that. These are supposedly the honest people for whom the youth must vote! What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say?
But usually you do not know what anyone is talking about. That is why you talk so much nonsense in this House. I shall put a very simple question to him, which I think he will understand. I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he will allow the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) to send a White soccer team from South Africa to play against a black soccer team in Swaziland? Can that happen under his party? Sir, this is the honest party for which the youth must vote; this is the honesty of Mr. Philip Myburgh, who said in Caledon that he refuses to eat with a black man.
Yes, in Stellenbosch. The hon. member speaks about racial co-operation. When the Minister of Tourism was a candidate in Caledon, Mr. Philip Myburgh said there, “How dare you as Afrikaners vote for such a D———Englishman?” This is the honesty for which the youth must vote. I want to say to the hon. member and to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that when he said that the hon. member for South Coast supported his Party’s Bantu policy in regard to the employment of Bantu, he was not telling the truth. He was not telling the truth and I am telling the hon. member for South Coast that when he said that he had made the speech for the safety of the people of the South Coast, he was not telling the truth. I know him well enough; if he had really thought there was any mortal danger, he would have done one of two things. He would have taken off his apron and waved it or he would have reported it to the system manager. He would not have walked around with it in his pocket for 14 days in order to make a political speech here. Let us go further. Let us examine the honesty of this party. They say that it is still their policy, as announced by the hon. member for Yeoville, to have the Bantu offer his labour on the best market. I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow whether he agrees with that. He is so honest; he does not know. This is surely a fair question to ask? Must the Bantu offer his labour on the best market, as the hon. member for Yeoville said?
This is one of those “are you still beating your wife” questions.
You may ask any other question, and he is still beating the wife. This is the honesty for which the youth must vote. When they talk to the industrialist, they say that the Bantu must offer his labour on the best market. This, of course, immediately means that influx control must be abolished and furthermore it means that families must not be separated. The Bantu must come to the White areas accompanied by his wife and children. This is the honest conclusion of their policy. Let me tell the hon. members that never before have we had such dishonesty in the politics of South Africa. They dare not be honest.
Before coming to the hon. member for Port Natal and the hon. member for Jeppes, I just want to say something about the announcement which the hon. the Minister of Finance made in connection with the 1 per cent subsidy on mortgages up to R12,000 on houses which are not valued higher than R16,000. The question arose as to how that measure would be applied. At the moment, the process is being discussed with the building societies and other financial institutions which grant mortgages. The big question which arose, is that there can be mortgages of more than R12,000 on houses of R16,000; some can be R13,000 and R14,000. The question generally put was what the attitude of the Government would be in that regard. It was asked whether that man would now forego the subsidy or not. The decision taken was that as long as the valuation of the house, as valued by the financial institution, did not exceed R16,000, the bond could be R13,000 or R14,000, but he would still be able to get a subsidy up to R12,000. When this system will be put into operation, is at the discretion of the Minister of Finance, because we do not yet know if the building societies are going to increase their interest rates. Consequently, when this measure will come into force will have to be decided later, and for the rest it is at the Minister of Finance’s discretion.
I now want to refer to the hon. member for Port Natal. He almost raved like a lunatic here yesterday. However, he was not cross with us, least of all with me. He was cross with his own party. Why? He was cross because his party had forbidden him to speak in the no-confidence debate. It was not I who said so; it was the Sunday Tribune. They said: “Winchester was muzzled as a punishment.” I read further—
I assume this was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—
Then they said that he was to have challenged me about certain police investigations into my Department and about a certain Indian who had not been granted a permit, although there was no alternative accommodation available to him. This is why the hon. member is cross. He is cross because they told him to stop his nonsense about me. He is cross because they told him, “You must keep your big mouth shut, or you will just land in trouble with Blaar Coetzee.” This is why the hon. member is cross. They told him that his facts were wrong and I shall also prove in a moment that they were wrong. They told the hon. member that he should rather leave me alone because I would chew him up before breakfast. However, they were obliged to give the hon. member a chance to speak. He thereupon put his foot into it just as deeply as the hon. member for South Coast did.
There is another report to which I want to refer. This appeared under the headline “Two United Party M.P.s to question credibility of Coetzee.” These were the hon. member for Port Natal and the hon. member for Durban (Central). They were to question my credibility. What happened? In reply to a letter, I gave certain information, and in reply to a question about the same matter. I gave the same information, just a little different. This is apparently my “credibility gap”. If I receive questions from hon. members, I refer them to my Department, because I do not carry all the information around in my head. The worst that could have happened is that some or other official made a mistake and did not give the correct information. What has this to do with honesty? What has it to do with a “credibility gap”? What is that hon. member to talk about honesty? At the beginning of this year, I accused the hon. member for Port Natal of telling three blatant lies to this House. He did not reply to me at the time. The hon. member said in this House that I had written him a letter to the effect that I had evicted 607 Indian businessmen in Durban. This was not true. They were never evicted, but merely declared unqualified persons. The hon. member for Port Natal has not yet had the decency to apologize to me for that. He proclaimed to the world that they were not displaced Indians, but that they had already been thrown out of their shops. This was the first untruth that he told.
You do not even know how many have been displaced.
Show me one single Indian who was put out of his shop and not offered an alternative one. I now come to the second untruth which the hon. member told. He said that Mr. Con Botha, the former Secretary of the National Party in Natal, had bought land from the Department of Community Development under tender. The hon. member then insinuated that it had not been the highest tender. He went on to say that Mr. Con Botha had bought the ground in his wife’s name, which was an infamous lie. This was not done. The hon. member told a third lie when he said: “The third piece of ground was sold to the person who had in fact surveyed the ground for the Department.” That person did not even apply for the ground. He does not even possess a square inch of that ground. He never even asked for that ground either. The hon. member has not yet had the decency to apologize to any of those people. In language which I shall not be allowed to use in this House, I told the hon. member in Durban exactly what I thought of him. I challenged the hon. member to institute a libel action against me. Until now I have only received a ridiculous letter from his attorney which I did not even regard as worth replying to I now challenge the hon. member to proceed with that libel action. I challenge him to have a summons served upon me. I look forward to nothing more than I do to that.
The hon. member went further and asked that a commission of inquiry be appointed in respect of the Department of Community Development. What must that commission of inquiry investigate? Not the control and the administration of the Department, because that is discussed an this House and on my vote. Such a commission can discover nothing more than what the hon. member can ask me in this House. One appoints a commission of inquiry only if there has been dishonesty in a department. The hon. member has been insinuating for the past few years that there is bribery and dishonesty in the Department of Community Development. He has done so in newspaper articles and from platforms as well. He has asked what happens to the profits which are made by the Department, as if he does not know that those profits are audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. He said yesterday that if I was not prepared to appoint a commission, I had something to hide. I now challenge the hon. member to submit his full statement of charges against my Department, supported by affidavits, and I shall recommend to the Cabinet that a commission of inquiry be appointed immediately. I want to go further. I challenge him to do so before my Vote comes up for discussion. If he has all that information which justifies a commission of inquiry and submits it here under oath, I shall guarantee him that a commission of inquiry will be appointed immediately. I am telling hon. members now, he will not do it.
Bring it. These are the honest people. These are people who talk about another man’s credibility. I will say this to him: Either he brings those facts and we appoint a commission of inquiry, or he will pass here for what he is, a cheap old jade of a slanderer.
What about his complaints? He complained about Riverside, where land was expropriated and then given back to the people. It was not only in Riverside, but in Prospect Hill as well. What is the position in Riverside? The position is that Riverside is the biggest slub in Durban. It is the biggest mess which one has ever seen in South Africa and which we inherited from that party. The Development Board is busy clearing up that mess which we inherited from them. Now I ask the hon. member, does he want to see it cleared up or not? He says: “Yes, you must clear it up, but whom are you consulting?” I will tell him whom we are consulting. In Riverside we are engaged in an urban renewal scheme and clearing up the mess which his party left there, and the Durban City Council has a committee working in conjunction with my State committee in order to carry out this task. This is whom we are consulting in regard to this matter.
But let me proceed. The hon. member levelled charges about the AK area and the Grey Street area. Sir, he has not brought one single case to my notice of a man who was badly treated in the AK area. But I want to put this question to hon. members: Why does one receive complaints from him? He does not bring them to my notice. I do not know Whether he represents that area, but one of his colleagues must represent that area, and why does he not bring those complaints to my notice? He complains about it now, but I have not received any complaints from the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Industries or the Organized Estate Agents. I have received no other complaints from anyone else, except from him in the newspapers, and nothing specific either.
What about the Indian Council?
That Council as well. They have made no representations to me about anything in the AK area. They made representations about the Grey Street area, and I referred them to the Minister of Planning, under whose jurisdiction it falls. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition something, although it is no use asking him anything. I challenge him to say, in the light of the charges which that hon. member made, whether the Development Board should be deprived of their expropriation rights. Must the Housing Commission be deprived of its expropriation rights? No, Sir, this they will not do.
Then the hon. member spoke about the great deal of land we possess. Of course we have a great deal of land. I wish we had twice as much land. But now he wants us to offer it to the public. We must now act as land speculators. We are keeping that land for housing schemes, because it can be given to the people cheaply.
I now come to the hon. member for Jeppes. He made the accusation here that with the urban renewal scheme in Jeppes, the Development Board is erecting flats the rent for which is R70 and R90. He said that no provision was being made for people in the lower income groups. But surely he knows that he was talking nonsense. The City Council is erecting a block of flats there for which the people, in his own words, do not pay rent of more than R63. They are intended for the income group earning less than R300 a month.
Yes, the City Council.
The City Council is doing it with our money and because we instructed them to do it. Furthermore, there is a sub-economic scheme in which duplex flats at R20 a month are being erected. Now I just want to tell him something. He is the hon. member for Jeppes. Does he want no flats there which are intended for people with an income exceeding R300 a month?
I do, but not in that renewal scheme. That is for the people …
But provision is being made for those people. The reason why the Development Board is building a better set of flats is to build up the entire backward area and to give it a new appearance. I am very pleased to have heard from the hon. member for Jeppes that for political reasons he does not want to give it a new appearance. He wants it to remain the poor area which it is at present. He wants to keep it a slum area.
That is not fair …
No, it is not very fair. You cannot build up such an area if you erect flats only for the one income group. You must build flats for the higher income groups as well. Provision is being made for the other people. The hon. member for Jeppes says it is impossible for his municipality and us to build houses for between R5,000 and R6,000, including the price of the land. Why does that hon. member not ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) whether it is possible?
Why does he not ask the hon. member for Green Point if it is possible? Why does he not ask everybody who has seen us building thousands and thousands of houses in the Johannesburg municipal area and on the Witwatersrand for R5,000 and R6,000, including the price of the land?
In what part of Johannesburg?
In the southern part of Johannesburg. In the Vrededorp area of Johannesburg. In the Western area of Johannesburg and everywhere. Later I shall give the hon. member details of how many the municipality is building. We are building thousands of those houses to-day. Hon. members who went on the tour last year, saw those houses in Johannesburg, on the Rand and everywhere.
How are the prices kept low?
We are keeping the prices low simply by building on a large scale. We are keeping them low by adhering to certain plans and by means of investigations which are made by the Building Research Institute. In addition, the loud is bought long before the time.
And by using non-white labour.
No. There are no non-Whites working there. If the hon. member saw any non-Whites there, he did not see what I saw. I did not see any non-Whites there. It is absolutely untrue. We build thousands of those houses.
But the rent is too high.
The rent is between R35 and R45.
Where? In Jeppes?
On the whole of the Wit-watersr and and also in Jeppes. In the case of a house that is bought, the interest and redemption also amount to between R35 and R45 a month. Now I shall tell you what the facts of the matter are. Let us take Johannesburg and Pretoria as an example. In Johannesburg and Pretoria a scientific survey was made of the housing requirements until the year 1973. It was found that in the Pretoria-Johannesburg complex, the requirement for the next three years will be just under 11,000 divelling units. The number of houses at present being built by us and the Johannesburg and Pretoria municipalities and in respect of which contracts have been concluded for the next three years, amounts to R16,500, i.e. 4,0 more than the scientifically determined requirement at the moment. In the Cape Peninsula, however, the position is not as favourable. Here the requirement is 3,600, while provision has been made for only 3,500 houses. This matter is at present receiving our attention. I shall also say what the position is in Durban. Possibly the hon. member for Port Natal may be interested in that. The scientific survey in regard to the need for houses in Durban for the period 1970 to 1973 shows it to be just below 4,000 divelling units. However, the programme between them and us is for just below 11,000 units. This indicates that the housing problem of Durban will have to be solved within three or four years.
I just want to deal briefly with the resettlement of the Indians and the Coloureds in the Republic of South Africa. That side constantly says that the Indians and the Coloureds are being pushed out of their houses. They are pushed into the veld and no alternative accommodation is offered to them. I say that every word of this is untrue.
What do they say in the rural areas?
Yes, in the rural areas again they say that we are spending too much money on those houses. They say that we are buying too many houses for the Coloureds and Coolies. Usually they say “Coolies and Hottentots”. Yes, this is what they say.
What about Myburgh Streicher?
I am not even talking about the hon. member for Newton Park. I shall come to him later. [Interjections]. And then we are spending too much.
I just want to tell this House what we have done thus far in regard to the resettlement of Coloureds and Indians in our large urban areas. In Johannesburg we have already settled just below 3,000 families and 3,500 remain to be resettled. We have resettled 2.546 Indian families in Johannesburg, and 1,421 families remain to be resettled. Every Indian and every Coloured who has been resettled moved from a worse house to a better house.
What is the position here in the Peninsula? In the Peninsula we have resettled just over 15,0 Coloured families and just over 10,000 Coloured families are still to be resettled. In Port Elizabeth we have re-established 3,339 and 33.031 remain to be resettled. The number of Coloureds resettled in Durban is rather small. However, we have resettled 13,733 Indian families in Durban in Chatsworth and the surrounding areas. Each one of them is now living in a better house than ever before. Only 7,288 families remain to be resettled there. This Government is proud not only of its housing programme, but also of its resettlement programme. I say to this House that no country in the world has better housing and housing schemes for its Whites and its non-Whites than the Republic of South Africa. Then the hon. member says we should go and learn from America. According to an article which I read recently, they say in America, “It is easier to put a man on the moon than to house him”. In Newsweek of 22nd July they said, “Nor are the poor the only victims of what has become the worst housing shortage since World War II”. Do hon. members know that more houses are being demolished in America to-day as a result of slum conditions and new roads and so forth which they want to build, than new houses are being built? Then we must go and look at these countries to learn from them!
Those hon. members also say that they are in favour of having separate residential areas when they say that they are in favour of having separate residential areas. I say to them that it is not true. If it is true, why do they not help us with Disctict Six? Why do they not help us with Riverside? Why are they kicking up a fuss here about the fact that we are cleaning up Riverside, if they believe in separate residential areas? Do they want District Six to be a Coloured residential area or a White residential area? Let the hon. member for Salt River tell me that.
A Coloured group area. I have told you that already.
The hon. member wants it to be a Coloured area. Does the Cape Council of his party support him when he says that it should be a Coloured area? It is going to become one of the loveliest parts of Cape Town and all the Coloureds living there are going to receive better housing than the mess in which they are sitting at the moment. [Time expired].
Mr. Speaker, this House had the privilege of listening to two hon. Ministers this afternoon. If I had to lend my ears to the political speculators, then one of these hon. Ministers was a shadow Prime Minister and the other, i.e. the Minister of Community Development, was still shadow-less.
Before coming to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, I should for one moment like to deal with the speech of the hon. the Minister of Labour. He delivered a hectic tirade here this afternoon and launched an attack on the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Now what did he get from the hon. the Minister with regard to the policy of the Nationalist Party? I have here an article which appeared in yesterday’s edition of Die Vaderland. The fact that the Nationalist Party Press can publish a statement of this nature on the labour question, carries weight. The hearts of the Nationalist Press and that of the Nationalist Party beat in close unison. The fact that the Press could have written this speculative article only proves one thing beyond any doubt, i.e. that deep down the ordinary Nationalist supporter feels extremely unhappy about the labour policy of the Nationalist Party. If one reads this article carefully, one comes to the conclusion that if the Nationalist Party wants to look for a new labour policy, it need not look very far. It will have to follow in the tracks left by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
Now I should like to come to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I believe he held a meeting in my constituency during the past election.
Was it of much help?
I shall come to that. He said at that time he knew that Hickman fellow. He said that fellow was not a bad chap. I want to tell the hon. the Minister this afternoon that I in turn know this man called Coetzee. He is not a bad man either. But now I want to come to Minister Coetzee. That hon. Minister speaks of political honesty and credibility. I should like to put a few questions to him. After all, he is always “kontant met sy vrae” (much too ready with his questions), to use a good Afrikaans expression. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether his political reputation is still at stake as far as the year 1978 is concerned?
I was hoping that the hon. the Minister would say “yes” because in 1978, according to him, the Black flow will be reversed with his co-operation.
That is not true.
The hon. the Minister says he did not say it would be reversed. Surely he did not say that the Black flow would increase. The hon. the Minister said that in 1978 the flow would be reversed. That was the essence of his statement. He is staking his political reputation on that. I should like to accept that that hon. Minister, as a politician, is a Minister of great credibility. But I want to warn him that 1978 is rapidly approaching and I still see no sign whatsoever of my reversal of the flow. But let us go a little further. Is he not the same Minister who told the people that he would reduce the number of Bantu workers in the Western Cape by 5 per cent annually? When we questioned the hon. the Minister about this 5 per cent the other day, he said he now had another job.
I reduced it by more than 5 per cent.
John Gunther wrote a book entitled “Inside Africa”. In that he says the Western powers brought “civilization plus 5 per cent” to Africa. I should like to tell this hon. Minister that if he is not careful, he will become a Minister whose reputation is minus 5 per cent. If the hon. the Minister still holds the view that he wants to reduce the labour force of the Western Cape by 5 per cent—and this percentage is growing according to the interjection he has just made— then I ask him, if he is honest politically, and I accept that he is, how does he reconcile his attitude in the Cabinet with that of the hon. the Minister of Transport? This is the crux of the matter.
What is wrong with that?
The manufacturing industrialist has to reduce his labour force because it suits the ideology of the Cabinet. But the hon. the Minister of Transport may continue with his policy, because it suits his particular working conditions. How does that hon. Minister reconcile these two divergent ideas? This whole matter is riddled with political incredibility. I do not have the least doubt about that.
Now I want to return to the hon. the Minister and his own particular portfolio. In my opinion this hon. Minister is responsible for one of the most important departments in modern South Africa. Community Development is a comprehensive term. Actually it implies more than only the building of houses, as many of us think. Like Cassius Clay, this hon. Minister comes to this House thumping his chest and saying: “I am the bestest”. We may safely call him “Cassius Coetzee, Minister of Community Under-Development”. The hon. the Minister comes to this House with statements and stands by what is written in the annual report of his Department. Let me read to him what this report says, because I should not like him to misinterpret me. Therefore I shall read from his own annual report—
These are not speculative statements; it is stated emphatically—
I whole-heartedly agree with that.
Talk about political credibility, Mr. Speaker! Surely the hon. the Minister knows it is not true.
Order! The hon. member may not say that.
I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. the Minister knows his facts, he will know that this is not true.
Tell me how many people in your constituency do not houses.
Surely the Minister ought to know that the housing emergency, particularly in Greater Cape Town, as it is known here, is more serious to-day than ever before.
How many are there in your constituency?
I am still coming to my constituency. I shall still describe to him the circumstances prevailing in my constituency. And then this hon. Minister comes along and says: “I am the bestest”. This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker; I know the state in which people are who cannot find houses.
I want to tell the Minister, and I do so with great respect, that no Leader in the Nationalist Party brought me as many votes as he did.
Remember that your leader also came to hold a meeting in my constituency.
After the election, the Nationalist Party held “post-mortems”. At conference after conference they tried to discover why things went so badly for them contrary to the prophecies of the hon. the Prime Minister. One of the reasons they discovered then, was this very one of housing. They decided that if it were necessary to do some overhauling, as the Prime Minister said, housing must be one of the top priorities. Did the hon. the Minister see that? And yet he tells us that there is no housing problem for the lower income group. Surely he knows that that is not true.
I said the position was perfectly sound. But now you tell me, what is the extent of the housing emergency in your constituency? Name me one White person who cannot be accommodated.
How does the hon. the Minister know there is no housing shortage?
Because scientific surveys were conducted.
I put it to the Minister, that since he has taken over the Department, no proper countrywide survey has been conducted into the housing needs of white South Africa. [Interjections.]
Three surveys have been made since I became Minister.
When the hon. the Minister wants to prove here in this House how plentiful houses allegedly are, he resorts to the “buy and sell” columns of The Argus. But this is a serious matter. Therefore it is frivolous of the hon. the Minister to approach the matter in that way. Has he not yet had his Department make a survey of the shortage?
Of course I have.
If the hon. the Minister has done so, he is keeping this House in the dark by not telling us what the position is. I have only been dealing with White housing up to now. Let me show him what the housing position in Greater Cape Town is. I have here in my hand a cutting from Die Burger. This article was not written by an irresponsible reporter. He says housing conditions in Greater Cape Town are as they were in the days of Karl Marx. This is the position at present, and not 50 years ago. But let me read the article to the hon. the Minister.
I have read it. Have you finished discussing housing for Whites and are you dealing with housing for Coloureds now?
Yes. What is the Minister going to do about it? This is not purely and simply a question of a housing shortage; one is striking blows at the foundation of one’s nation if one’s people do not have sufficient housing.
At present more extensive housing schemes for Coloureds are being operated in the Cape than ever before in our history.
You may be right, but then you should not bring South Africa under the wrong impression, i.e. that there is no shortage of housing for the lower income group. In fact, there is an acute and crying shortage. The hon. the Minister will be surprised.
I say there is no serious problem.
What do we get out of this Budget for housing? A drop in the ocean. Only the other day the hon. the Minister admitted in reply to a question that it was impossible to determine what the housing needs were at any given moment, because they were changing constantly. I agree with that. As I see it, it is the first duty of any person who is in charge of community development to have a nationwide survey conducted so as to determine in that way what the needs are and to make projections of the needs on those grounds.
But it has been done.
The hon. the Minister apparently does not know where he is. It has not been done, and if it has—and I should like to accept the hon. the Minister’s word— then he has done nothing about it. He must not look at the demand for houses in the newspapers and at applications lodged at municipal offices. The people are disheartened, so much so that they no longer even want to out their names on a list, because nothing happens.
Name me one person from your constituency.
I shall take you to streets in my constituency, and the hon. the Minister will not believe that Whites are living in those streets. I shall tell you what our problem is—ours and not only his: We are too inclined to drive along the highways, the by-passes, the De Waal Drives. From time to time we should make a detour from there and go into the ordinary roads, streets and backstreets to see where our people are living.
But you are opposing the clearing up of District Six.
The Minister and his Party are building paper palaces and are forgetting that the people have to live in houses.
I shall grant you this: We have not quite succeeded in clearing up the mess you made.
That is an old artifice with which the hon. the Minister will not get away. I shall take him to places and he will hardly be able to believe that Whites are living there. And yet the Minister says that there is no housing shortage for certain groups. Well, I challenge him to leave his telephone number at The Argus with the invitation to anyone who wants a house may telephone him. I shall pay the cost of that, Mr. Speaker. For 24 hours the hon. the Minister will not be able to get any sleep.
I challenge you to tell the people in your constituency that everyone who does not have a house, should telephone me to-morrow.
Very well. I shall be the first one to telephone you. I can give the Minister a few addresses now, or in the lobby, of the serious cases only.
Why have you not done so?
If the hon. the Minister will give me persmission to come to him with every application for a house …
I shall be able to help you.
This is the most happy promise! Then I say the hon. the Minister may rightly say: “Casius Coetzee, I am the best”. But to come back to my point. I say a nationwide survey is point No. 1 …
It has been done.
… so that we need not run to The Argus. Point No. 2 is the following. The Minister should first try to encourage the ordinary citizen of South Africa to own a house independent of his Department. without bringing his Department into the matter, but completely on his own. And do you know where I shall start? I shall start with the old-age pension and I shall say: As from to-day no house will fall under the means test anymore; it will be abolished completely. I shall tell the pensioner: We are so grateful that you have built a house for yourself, that we are prepared to do our share, too. But at the moment, if one’s house is somewhat large, one is penalized. Secondly, I shall tell the man: Build or buy your own home and I shall see to it that you do not pay one cent in respect of transfer fees. That is what can be done.
Why do you not tell this to the Municipality of Cape Town? The law places them under the obligation to provide accommodation for their people.
I am speaking of people outside of your Department. But there you have the whole approach and that is wrong. And thirdly, I shall tell every person buying his own home independent of the Department: I shall allow you to deduct the monthly instalments you pay on your home from your taxable income.
I know far better promises than those.
These are not cheap promises. These are hints to the hon. the Minister which are worth following, and when I have dealt with them, I shall come to his Department. Do you know what I shall do in Cape Town? The Minister has 3,800 plots. Is this the position or not?
It may be more for all I know.
I think the time has come for us to ask the hon. the Minister what the profits on those plots will be when he sells them.
Nothing. The Housing Commission does not make profits.
I am grateful to hear this, but if this is so, I am asking the hon. the Minister whether it is not a fact that he is making profits on other plots.
The Development Board, yes.
Will the Minister tell this House at some stage what the profits are which he is making on plots, while he is supposed to be looking after the housing needs of the people?
To which plots are you referring now?
I am referring to the plots on which profits are made.
But you do not know how the whole thing works. You know nothing.
No, the hon. the Minister cannot get away with that artifice.
I have asked you to which plots you are referring.
The hon. the Minister has asked enough questions. I am now asking them. I want to tell the Minister that he ought to make those 3,800 plots available to meet the crying housing shortage in Cape Town. Let the people buy them. The hon. the Minister knows that a plot in the Peninsula is as hard to come by as a farm in Adderley Street, but while he knows that, he is keeping 3,800 plots off the property market. In the third place, I want to say that the hon. the Minister should also do his share to ensure that there is proper co-ordination between himself and the various Departments.
I shall make you an offer as far as those plots are concerned. I shall release all those plots if you get the Cape Town City Council to address that request to me.
Sir, I did not know before that the hon. the Minister was under the wings of the Cape Town City Council. I did not know before that the hon. the Minister was being controlled by the Cape Town City Council.
You do not know what the Housing Act says.
The Housing Act has nothing to do with this. It is the hon. the Minister who takes action.
It has everything to do with this.
The Development Board or the hon. the Minister may take action.
The Development Board does not build houses.
They do not build houses, but they may sell the plots.
For you to speculate with them?
Sir, the hon. the Minister cannot escape from his embarrassment by asking a lot of questions.
Neither can you with your stupid questions.
They are so stupid that the hon. the Minister cannot reply to them. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he cannot get away from the fact that his Department has a greater duty to perform than ever before, and the statement we read in his annual report, i.e. that there is no serious housing shortage, is the greatest understatement of the year.
Bring me a few names before my Vote comes up for discussion.
I shall bring them. Sir, this Budget offers very little for relieving the housing shortage, and if the man in the street were to ask after the Budget what had been done for him, he would have to come to the conclusion that next to nothing had been done for him. Sir, do you know what we are doing? I have been listening to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare. In the modern times in which we are living he actually took the step of comparing present conditions, as far as old-age pensions are concerned, to those which prevailed in 1928 and 1948. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that conditions have changed completely during the past 22 years?
Under National rule.
By the way, the prosperity we have been hearing about is due to the fact that this side is not applying its colour policy, because if they were to apply their labour policy in keeping with their ideology, the whole economy of South Africa would collapse.
That is what you want.
Sir, I repeat that hon. members on the opposite side must not think that they will get away with telling us what the people got in 1948 and what they are getting now. In the past 22 years new norms and new needs have arisen, and I am asking whether any hon. member in this House this afternoon can get up and tell me that an old person, an old woman of 65 years or more, can live on R35 per month.
In my constituency they are grateful to get it.
Sir, the hon. member says they are grateful. I accept that they are grateful. If I am on the point of dying from thirst in the desert and need one gallon of water to keep me alive, I shall welcome a drop. Sir, regardless of statistics or whatever, the vital question is this: Is there any member in this House who can tell me that an old person can live on R35 per month. If there is such an hon. member, let him get up so that I may see what he looks like. And if no hon. member gets up to tell me this, then I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to rectify this matter. I cannot believe that this prosperous South Africa with its diamonds and gold and raw materials cannot succeed in paying our aged more than R35 each per month. I have been taught that if one wanted to gauge the level of civilization attained by a people, one should look at the way it is treating its aged. If we look at the way the Nationalist Party is treating the aged, I say the time has arrived for us to review the question of social welfare and the treatment of our aged.
I believe the hon. the Minister of Community Development is painting a picture for us. of things which do not exist, and I believe the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is out of touch with the needs of the people, and I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance has not even given an indication in his Budget that he has any idea of the needs of thousands of people in South Africa.
The hon. member who has just sat down, lost his constituency and his seat in this House in the past as a result of the things he said, and I think he is well on the way to doing the same again. In the old days there were the so-called pedlars in animal skins. They have disappeared from the scene, but in this no-confidence debate we made the acquaintance of pedlars in votes. The hon. member raised a strong point against the Minister of Community Development as regards the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape; he spoke about the reduction of 5 per cent. The fact of the matter is, however, that the Bantu were reduced by more than 5 per cent in the Western Cape. The wives and children were removed and a new basis was found. The permanency was terminated and to-day we are dealing with migrant labour.
There are many more of them.
Sometimes there will be more of them. When the seasonal labourers are here, there are sometimes more of them, but during the other seasons their numbers are considerably less. The hon. the Minister has therefore kept his word.
As regards housing, I do not want to go into the silly arguments advanced by my hon. friend, but I just want to tell him that I am also living in South Africa and that the housing position has never been better than it is to-day. The housing position in my own constituency, which is a developing constituency, has never been better than it is to-day. The hon. member also launched a vicious tirade on the aged. The aged are quite happy today. When two elderly people have a joint income of R70 per month and are able to obtain a cheap house, they are happy. The majority of the municipalities in South Africa in every community sees to it that where there is no home for the aged, cheap housing is made available for the elderly people. I can assure my hon. friend that he will not fool the elderly people. They will not only remain Nationalist, but they also contribute towards the National Party from the money they receive.
I now want to deal with a matter which is important not only to this House but also to South Africa. During the past 15 months we have seen illustrated spectacularly in this House the difference between a party with principles and a party without any principles. Everyone that was present here was able to see it and the country was able to see it through the Press. When that gentlemen, Dr. Hertzog, made a speech in this House 15 months ago, which was in conflict with the policy of the National Party, he was immediately repudiated. He was not only repudiated, but was expelled from the party and he had to seek refuge elsewhere. Last week the hon. member for South Coast made a speech that was directly in conflict with the policy of his party. What happened, however? His Leader protected him. This is a spectacular illustration of the difference between strong leaders and poor leaders with no backbone. To emphasize this difference even further, the United Party moved an amendment in this debate which demanded that all the labour be used effectively. Is this possible and conceivable after the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast? If this is not ambiguity and undisguised fraud and if this is not misleading people to the highest degree …
Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “fraud”.
I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. If this is not a confidence-trick, then I do not know what is. I want to say here to-day that if the hon. member for South Coast is not repudiated in this debate, the United Party and its leaders will be stigmatized as a party without any morals and as a dishonest party. It is not only this House that will take cognizance of this, but the country as well. If the hon. member for South Coast is not repudiated, I predict that all decent people in South Africa will turn their backs on the United Party. With this double-barrelled policy the United Party will never come into office again in South Africa.
The United Party has, since the election, developed a cock of the walk attitude. We on this side of the House will not shirk the challenge that awaits us. We are not going to withdraw one step or run away from our policy. Neither are we going to run away from the consequences of our policy. On the contrary, the election results have made Nationalists aware of the United Party again. The United Party was no longer a party and did not exist any more. As a result of the election there are signs of life again in the skeleton of this Party, and we and our supporters welcome it.
I want to subject the ambiguity of the United Party to a further examination. We had another spectacle in this House yesterday which served to expose the ambiguity of the United Party even further. This was laid bare in the Railway debate by the hon. the Minister of Transport, while the dishonesty was even further exposed yesterday by the hon. member for Houghton.
According to Die Burger.
No, I was sitting here listening to the debate. She made a statement and then put a question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. She asked him: “Do you want to train the Bantu for the work? If you want to train the Bantu for the work, you will have to introduce compulsory education.” Sir, what was his reply. “It will cost too much money.” This is not the reply of a statesman and a leader, but the reply of a vote-pedlar. Only a person who is trying to catch votes, could have such an ambiguous policy and run away from his own policy in this way.
Here we have again a clear, spectacular difference between a party with principles and a party without principles. I want to illustrate again the difference between the two parties. When the National Party was asked how much separate development would cost, the reply was straightforward and clear. The Leader of the Opposition says it will cost too much money to implement his policy to its logical conclusion. The reply of the National Party was: It does not matter how much it is going to cost; what is at issue is the security of the white man and racial peace in general. That is the difference between an idealistic party, the National Party, which cherishes ideals for South Africa, and a materialistic party, which wants to know how much money it is going to cost.
The golden calf.
Yes, the worshippers of the golden calf. That is the difference between an honest and a dishonest party. That is the difference between a party with principles and a party without principles.
The United Party now thinks that it has become an alternative government after the latest election results. Sir, the United Party is not an alternative government and can never be an alternative government, precisely because of their materialism. The political thoughts of the United Party are entangled in a short term policy of making money. What they are in favour of is a materialistic short term policy of making money. “Let us live quickly, let us utilize all the manpower and all the people. Let us make money quickly. As far as the rest is concerned, we cannot be bothered. We can flee the country if it comes to that.” The policy of the United Party is and remains the dead-end street for the white man in South Africa. It is not the friend of the white man; it is the enemy of the white man. Carry out its labour policy and industrial peace and quiet will come to an end.
The colour policy of the United Party is totally unacceptable to the Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. It is not only the Whites who reject the colour policy of the United Party. Every decent non-White in South Africa rejects it too. Surely it is unrealistic to think that what has been done in South Africa during the past decade could be undone. Separate freedoms cannot be undone. It is no longer an experiment. It has succeeded. England cannot, will not and dare not undo what has happened in the Protectorates.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced a strong point to-day as regards economic independence. The Protectorates are not independent economically. They are economically dependent, although they are independent politically. However, they are not going to relinquish that independence for all the gold in the world. We have set out Bantu states on the road to political freedom.
How long is it still going to take?
It will happen sooner than that hon. member and the United Party expect. Those states will be economically dependent for many years to come. What country in the world is economically independent? I know of no country in the whole world which is completely independent economically. The argument of economic independence holds no water. Not even in Europe does one find a country that is economically independent. The fact that the European Common Market exists, bears this out. England would like to join the European Common Market. There is not one single country in the world that is economically independent. Why then do we hear this nonsensical argument that the National Government should lead our Bantu states to economic independence?
I now want to say something in reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who had such a great deal to say about the youth. Because the National Party is an idealistic party and because it offers the youth of South Africa an enormous task for the future, the youth of South Africa will not leave the National Party in the lurch. They will not do it now or in the future. The challenge that awaits the youth of South Africa is a more formidable one than the challenge that awaits the youth of any other country in the world. It is the challenge to develop our policy of separate development and to implement it to its logical conclusion. The State is waiting on the youth. I believe the youth will fulfil this. As against this, the United Party has the idea that separate development is a political whim. It is not a political whim to the National Party. It is a philosophy of life and a way of life. Every national group, however small, wants to be itself and to govern itself. It is just this that is embodied in the policy and the principles of the National Party. Therefore I say that the National Party will not deviate. We will fight to keep and to build on what we have established since 1948.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malmesbury did not say very much. He was like a hungry chicken. He pecked here, there and everywhere and found nothing. He stated here that two old people could live very comfortably on R70 per month and that they could live so comfortably that they could afford to give a portion of this to the Nationalist Party. I want to say that this is a shocking statement. My feeling is that if the United Party were in power and we could not afford to pay two old people more than R70 per month, we would refuse to take any money from them for the United Party.
On two occasions the hon. the Minister of Community Development rose in this House and made a statement which I say is completely untrue. I refer to his statement in regard to a football match in Swaziland. I want to say too that the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation made the same statement on two occasions. Of course one can expect this from him. Such a statement was also made by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions at a public meeting before the election. I intend not to-day but at the right opportunity to bring proof to this House to show that these statements were in fact false. I only hope that when I do this the Ministers concerned will have the courtesy to apologize not only to me but to the association about which they have told lies.
You will not get out of it that way.
I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. I am sorry to see that he is not in the House at the moment. I want to say that in the very short time that it has been my privilege to serve as a member of this hon. House, I have heard from time to time irresponsible speeches emanating from that side of the House. I want to say that the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance must take pride of place in this respect. I say this with a great deal of regret because I have respect for this Deputy Minister. I watched him come into this House and he had a meteoric rise to a position of great responsibility. It really surprised me therefore to hear such a speech coming from a person of his standing.
I want to say that the Deputy Minister of Finance, in reacting to a perfectly sensible and positive suggestion from the United Party that all the manpower resources of South Africa should be used in the interests of South Africa, immediately trotted out the old “swart gevaar” bogey, dressed in all its trappings. I want to say to him that for him to suggest that the logical conclusion to the alternative policy of the United Party in regard to the use of labour would mean strikes, protest marches, riots and bloodshed is, I believe, a completely irresponsible statement. He made great play here of keeping the balance, of racial harmony and of industrial peace. I want to say to him that if any speech was ever calculated to bring about disharmony and racial strife, it was the speech he made. He finished by making the really ridiculous suggestion that if the worst came to the worst, we, the 3 million Whites in South Africa, should roll up our sleeves and run this country on our own. What a stupid and ridiculous suggestion! The hon. the Minister of Finance knows that if we had to do without the contribution made by the non-white people in South Afrca, our economy would fold up like a pack of cards. I want to say that I did expect a lot more from this hon. Deputy Minister.
I want to return to the question of labour. As I see it, it is not necessary to have a degree of economic training or any special insight into economics to realize that of the three great resources, namely land, capital and labour, labour represents by far the most critical factor.
Mr. Speaker, by the same token, it is perfectly obvious that in a small developing country like South Africa, labour and the way in which it is motivated to create the highest level of productivity, becomes of paramount importance. Unfortunately for South Africa, the Government does not seem to subscribe to this point of view. Nationalist Party policy, where it concerns the use of labour, contains in it all the seeds of future economic disaster for South Africa. I say this deliberately and advisedly because this Nationalist Party Government just does not seem to understand, and will not allow itself to be convinced even by the experts in the field, that the fundamental requirement for our developing country is a bigger, better, well-motivated, but above all, a productive labour force, drawn from all the races in South Africa.
The harder one tries, the more difficult it becomes to fathom the Government’s attitude and approach to South Africa’s serious labour problem. Not only are we faced with a critical skilled labour defict in every sector of our economy, but to make matters infinitely worse, we find that the productivity of our existing labour force is not keeping pace with the increased wages and salaries that are being paid to-day. Yet, in the light of this very unsatisfactory economic situation, we find that the Government continues to inhibit productivity with a bewildering number of laws and regulations. The Government robs the economy of the energy, drive and ambition that would surely toe born in thousands of non-Whites if their horizons were extended by a sensible and official relaxation of job reservation.
I want to say that surely this Government should have the courage to devise and formulate a formula that would adequately proteat the future of the white worker while at the same time, giving the non-white worker an opportunity of finding his correct economic level not in some mythical homeland in the distant future, but in the industry where he is being employed to-day. There can be no doubt that South Africa has reached the stage in its development where the Whites in their own interest and in the interest of South Africa as a whole, will have to surrender some of the technical burden to the non-Whites. Let me add immediately that the Government need not have any real fear about this. It will not be a question of a black man taking a white man’s job. We know that manpower and labour projections worked out not by politicians, but by the top experts in the country, show only too clearly that even if we have an influx of 40,000 immigrants per year and even if we draw to the fullest possible extent on all the races in South Africa for our labour, there will still not be enough people with the required skills to perform the tasks and fill the posts that will be empty by 1980.
As I have said, the most urgent task facing this Government is the very important task of seeing to it that all the economically active people in South Africa are properly equipped to meet the challenge of the 70’s. You see, Sir, South Africa is not only developing at a fast and continuous rate, but it is also about to be swept along by the tide of technological revolution which is engulfing the world to-day. As this new age approaches we find that because of the lack of vision of the Government we have far from enough people with the required skills to meet the challenge of the era which is passing, let alone the one that lies ahead. Not only is there a critical shortage of the necessary skills, but we also lack the facilities to produce those skills. As the industrial colour bar continues to collapse at the lower levels, so the prospects for the future are becoming even more disturbing. The sophisticated training and retraining facilities needed to bring our new industrial period into proper focus are entirely lacking. I would say that the most urgent and imaginative action is needed by the Government to rectify the position.
Let us pause for a moment to examine the position of the nearly 4.5 million economically active Bantu in South Africa, and we must do this remembering that they are by far the largest section of our available indigenous manpower resources. Let us start from the premise that this Bantu population is there and that they play a very important part in our economy. I think we are all agreed that a significant increase in productivity among this section of our population must have immense benefits for South Africa. Then let us ask ourselves quite objectively whether the Government is doing anything of a positive nature to stimulate and encourage this productivity among the Bantu people. Let us ask ourselves what chance the average Bantu has of enjoying some of the better things of life offered by twentieth century technology; what are his chances of increased wages and a better standard of living? What chance has he of reaching possibly the middle income group which will enable him to feed and clothe his family adequately, to educate his children properly and possibly to own a modest motor-car and some of the other things that make life worthwhile to the ordinary human being? Of course the answer to all these questions is that under present circumstances and under the policy of the Nationalist Party Government his chances are very slim indeed, because lack of basic education and advanced training facilities have virtually closed the door to him.
We hear a lot of talk about Bantu wage levels. The subject has received a great deal of attention by public bodies and well-meaning people. One then asks oneself why has nothing more been done; why has not the Government given the lead in bettering the lot of the Bantu so as to make him a more productive and satisfied worker? Surely there should have been some narrowing of the gap between white and non-white wages by now, because, incredible as it might seem, this wage gap is as wide to-day as it was 30 years ago. If we take as an example industry and construction as the largest single employer in the economy, we find that in the period 1935 to 1969 the annual wages of white workers increased from R452 to R3,124, while at the same time wages for the Bantu increased from R84 to R566. Can there be any justification for such a large gap in wages?
Whose fault is that?
Surely this is entirely wrong and bad for the economy, and I will tell you why, Sir. It is because this wage gap clearly indicates low productivity, which it in itself is the greatest barrier to increased productivity. I will be the first to admit that the solution to the problem of Bantu wages and increased productivity does not lie in the giving of a major increase in unskilled wages, because we on this side of the House are realistic enough to appreciate that a sudden increase in unskilled wages will have very severe repercussions on our export market, the mines and the users of farm labour. We are also realistic enough to appreciate that unskilled Bantu labour is to-day in over-supply, with many unemployed. So a higher wage would not necessarily bring the potential Bantu worker into the economy.
Hon. members opposite might now ask me what then is the solution. I want to say that there is only one solution, the solution that has been propagated so consistently by the United Party. The solution is rapid economic growth and increased productivity through the general moving of unskilled and semi-skilled labour up the skilled labour ladder.
That is the solution, and hon. members have heard my hon. Leader telling them how this can be done without affecting the country one iota but in an orderly manner and with the full co-operation of the trade unions. I say that this solution can be put into effect, but only by the United Party. This could never happen under the hide-bound policy of the Nationalist Party because they have decreed in their stubborn and dogmatic way that this type of healthy economic development can only take place in the mythical homelands and in the border areas. I am sure that given the chance this party could put this policy into immediate effect, and believe me, it would work.
But all is not lost because one does discern a faint glimmering of light in the darkness. It would appear that at least some Cabinet Ministers are coming down to earth in regard to South Africa’s serious labour and manpower problems. For instance, we had the hon. the Minister of Labour, who spoke so feelingly to-day, going on record as saying that even if we had an influx of 40,000 immigrants a year there would still not be enough white hands to do South Africa’s work. The hon. gentleman went even further, to his everlasting credit, and said that it would be idiotic to hold back South Africa’s development by not allowing non-Whites into skilled positions. Sir, how does one relate this type of speech with the speech we heard today from the same Minister and from the Deputy Minister of Finance? Sir, is it not tragic that while our great country, under the hidebound Nationalist Party, dithers along, allowing a trickle of non-white unskilled workers into skilled positions, the world outside is moving into an era of electronic automation? Old concepts in regard to skill and training are going by the board. The position of the artisan is becoming completely revolutionized but, Sir, our Government, bogged down by its ideological day-dreaming, gives no hint of knowing anything about this. It is no wonder that there is no appreciation by the Government of the fact that this type of thinking must eventually lead to dangers and hazards. I want to say that these dangers and hazards are very real indeed and I believe that they fully justify the claim that I made at the outset of my speech that Nationalist Party policy, where it concerns itself with the use and motivation of labour, holds all the seeds for future economic disaster for South Africa. Sir, it gives me pleasure and pride to associate myself with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if the Government is once again faced with a problem, with a group, and that group is apparently the Botha group in this House, a group of seven, represented in the Cabinet by the hon. the Minister of Defence, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It seems to me therefore as if this group is in a strong bargaining position and could be a power factor and could perhaps form a Botha government in this House once more.
It is indeed a privilege for me to be able to stand here as the representative of the Ermelo constituency, a constituency which was formerly represented in this House by a Minister of Agriculture years ago, the late Mr. W. R. Collins, and until recently by a Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I must admit, however, that my voters’ interests in the Post Office have recently waned somewhat. But I nevertheless want to express my gratitude to my predecessor for what he did in fact do over a period of almost 22 years while he represented that constituency and sat on this side of the House as their representative. I am his successor, Sir, unfortunately without his blessing and without his support.
Mr. Speaker, we are living in a country, South Africa, which has during the past few decades undergone a complete metamorphosis. It is commonplace to say that the industrialist is predominant over the rural tranquility of this country, and this is also a feature of the Budget before the House, and as a result of that we have experienced the consequent urbanization of a very large sector of our population groups. It is true that this has resulted in disruption, and in addition we have also had a tremendous influx of immigrants from various countries and parts of the world with the result that the urban population in particular has become a totally heterogeneous population group. This has definitely caused an entirely new way of life, an entirely new outlook on life and an entirely new pattern of living to become integral parts of our social life, and it would probably be shortsighted of us to disregard in its entirety that altered pattern which has found such firm acceptance here. But while this is true, it is also true that on the other hand the white population in this country is maintaining a particular, firm, stereotyped pattern of living and that there are basic principles, basic concepts of a primary nature, a way of life which is truly unique to the Afrikaner people and which in the past has served as a hrm guiding line. I want to urge that this way of life and these concepts and these principles should not only be preserved but that they can to good effect be transplanted, projected and inculcated in our new fellow countrymen. There are many such principles, but the most important which I want to mention in this connection, is that the Sunday should be hallowed as the Sabbath Day. Sir, I do not want to make a Calvanistic speech. The hon. the Minister of Finance quoted here: “Go to the ant, thou sluggard.” Sir, I want to join to that the admonition contained in the Fourth Commandment and say: "Six days” (please note, Mr. Speaker, not five days) “shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; But the seventh day is the sabbath; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant.” Mr. Speaker, in our times these old norms and these values are being demolished. It is true that we are living in an age of indulgence, sometimes licentiousness, and that there is a tendency among our people in South Africa as well to become less and less dogmatic, but I think that it is nevertheless the task of the Government to embody in its legislation and to prescribe for its subjects an orderly and a fitting pattern of living, and that it is also our task as the Government to promote the sound morals and customs of the community. Sir, whether the Government should curb activities on the Sunday, on the Sabbath Day, by means of legislation is a very old issue. On the one hand there is the school of thought which maintains that the individual has freedom of conscience and religion and has no need for artificial protection thereof. One writer, who received much publicity in a recent case before the Supreme Court in regard to his criticism of our courts, stated his objections thus—
In the final analysis of this matter he described it as—
This is the approach of this school of thought. On the other hand there are those, however, who do in fact maintain that the majority of our people in South Africa profess the Protestant-Christian faith, and that it is consequently the bounden calling of the Government to ensure that this day, the Sunday, is not profaned and that it should be made possible for every citizen in this country to enjoy the Sabbath undisturbed. I therefore want to advocate that in our pursuit of material prosperity in South Africa, we must preserve the Sabbath as the day of rest. It must be thus enacted by the Government and our activities on this day must be restricted to the essentials. If there are activities which have to be performed, whether it is in the public sector or in the private sector —and I am referring here particularly to the carrying on of business on that day—then we will have to restrict and confine ourselves to the needs of eventualities as these may occur. Let us therefore allow the emphasis to fall on the necessity thereof, and not on the materialistic aspect. South Africa is blessed with so much material prosperity, but its manpower, and particularly its white manpower, is being harnessed almost to breaking point. Since labour for the five-day working week is already obtainable only at a premium here, and since consumption and spending has to be curtailed, since inflation has to be combated, I do not think we must overreach ourselves. Since we still have tranquility and peace for the soul and body in this fine country of ours, I think it is our task to set the world an example. The immigrant accepts this. Recently I read an article in one of the English newspapers here in Cape Town. The letter was written by an immigrant who was most impressed by the fact that we in South Africa are still able to enjoy the Sunday in this devout manner. The tourist accepts this. I spoke recently to a number of tourists who happened to be in this country in connection with a certain matter. They told me that they found it so pleasant to enjoy this transquility on a Sunday morning in this beautiful city of Cape Town. I spoke to one of the non-white leaders in another sphere and on another level in this connection. His words to me were that he thought our activities on this day should be curtailed because, as he put it, “My people are also becoming Christianized.” I want to state that if this is a retrogressive step, then it is a very good retrogressive step.
Mr. Speaker, it is for me, as new member, a pleasant privilege to extend to another new member my sincere congratulations on his maiden speech in this House. I want to say that I wish I were he who now has his maiden speech behind him. I listened to him very attentively and I am certain that if he carries on in this manner, he will still make his mark in this House. I envy him his calm delivery and his clear way of seeing things. I want to wish him a very long and fruitful period of office in this House.
As a newcomer I gladly make use of the freedom to speak in this debate on a subject of my own choice. I want, very briefly, to express a few ideas on problems which intimately affect our people in general, but in particular our people in the rural areas, and which I am also very deeply concerned about. I trust, however, that you will allow me to make a few preliminary remarks, and I want to begin by saying that it is for me an exceptional privilege to be able to serve in this House and to take my seat in this Chamber which is so rich in tradition, in which over the years great decisions have been made which have given shape to a young nation and direction to the development of this fine country of ours. I regard it as being as much of a privilege to be able to serve in this House in this particular day and age. In these times in which South Africa has already, together with the rest of the world, entered a new dispensation, in which science and technology have gained a new significance and greater importance and have not only opened new vistas for us, but also constitute great challenges, inter alia, to make beneficial use of the opportunities offered by the new dispensation, but also to ensure that our nation does not lose its balance and forfeit its identity and character in the maelstrom of confused thinking and values. I am very thoroughly aware therefore of what responsibilities go with these privileges, responsibilities not only towards my own voters, but also towards my people and country as a whole.
I am very proud to be able to represent the constituency of Winburg here. I feel humble, however, to be the successor of worthy predecessors, men who made their mark in the political history of this country. I should like to mention and pay tribute on this occasion to the late Mr. C. T. M. Wilcocks, former Administrator of the Free State; the unforgettable and prematurely departed Dr. N. J. van der Merwe; our first State President, the highly esteemed Mr. C. R. Swart, whom I have the privilege to represent here; and Mr. Sadie, at present Commissioner-General of the South Suthu—all men who left their particular and unique imprint on this House. The constituency of Winburg comprises a large part of the western and central Free State and includes some of the best arable and grazing land in our country, as well as the Vet River, birthplace of Africander cattle, which takes pride of place and is the aristocrat among our tame animals. Within this constituency are situated four large dams, i.e. the Allemanskraal Dam, the Krugersdirft Dam, the Erfenis Dam and the Bloemhof Dam, which lie there as testimony to an awareness of the scarcity but also of the value of water. At the same time they also offer wonderful possibilities for recreational resorts. In fact, an excellent recreational resort as well as a game reserve which compares with the best in the country have already been developed by the Free State Provincial Administration at the Allemanskraal Dam. As hon. members will note, the constituency of Winburg is an ordinary rural constituency. It does not have great concentrations of population, it does not have mines, it does not have major industries or large educational institutions. or other facilities such as civic centres and theatres, but, Sir, it is not for that reason less important, because it shares in the same way in the privilege of being able to have two of the most important and most enduring assets which a nation can have, namely people and the soil. These are two assets which have up to now determined and influenced and continue to do so, the way of life and the character of our people, as well as the level of civilization which they have attained. In fact, what we are and what we have, we owe, if not exclusively, then primarily, to the inborn strength of our people and to a native soil which, although not rich in good agricultural land, is nevertheless so rich in a great variety of natural resources. These are therefore two assets which we may not neglect, but which we must conserve, because these are and remain the two foundations stones with which and on which we must and can build our future.
Sir, I do not want to deal with the Budget, but I do nevertheless want to point out in passing that a budget is undoubtedly one of the most important developmental instruments in the hands of a government. In a young, growing and developing country such as South Africa, which is continuously under pressure, judicious and correct determinations of priorities are to a large extent the key to success. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for having, in this Budget, succeeded so well in doing this, and also to express my gratitude for the considerable amounts which have been appropriated on behalf of the development of manpower, as well as on behalf of agriculture, which in these days is going through very difficult times.
We have had a wonderful history of early settlement, but the subsequent early history of the development of this country is in many respects and for obvious reasons less stirring. Often we had to plan passively. Often we had to allow development to take its course and to plan afterwards in the wake of that development. The hand of history consequently reveals itself to a large extent to-day in the depopulation process, not so much of the rural areas as such, but particularly in the depopulation of our smaller towns. We have the position to-day that our smaller towns are becoming even smaller and the larger towns and cities ever larger. But these smaller towns must nevertheless keep abreast of and comply with raised standards, which are so essential and indispensable in a country with a heterogeneous population. They must continue to keep abreast and render better, more expensive and more sophisticated services to a shrinking population out of dwindling funds.
The local authorities of our smaller towns are consequently faced with uncertainties in respect of their future, while the local authorities of larger towns and cities are faced with expansions and planning problems, and both are faced with financial problems. If we bear in mind that the function of meeting to a large extent so many of the primary needs of man as an individual, as well as the needs of man in his social context has been entrusted to local authorities, then it is clear that it is on this bottom level where important foundations are being laid for community development, which in its turn is so indispensable for national development. In fact, Sir, it is on this bottom level where so many of the institutions which function on a national or provincial level must inevitably be brought together. That is why it is of as much importance to the Government as it is to the Provincial Administrations, the local authorities and the inhabitants of the towns themselves, that our towns should function as healthy social units and accommodate happy and satisfied people.
Since we are on the eve of revised financial arrangements between the Government and the Provinces, I want, in all humility, to point out that a little additional help to our local authorities will be very well spent, and will most certainly yield rich dividends.
When we come to the soil we find that our farmers and other experts in that line are deeply concerned, and rightly so, about the future. Soil deterioration has assumed alarming proportions in large parts of our country, particularly during the last few years, and the rate at which this is taking place has as a result of protracted droughts increased rapidly. We Know that the indirectly detrimental effect of droughts on the soil is far greater than the direct damage which such droughts do. As a result of the fact that a farmer who finds himself under financial pressure precisely because of a drought, tries to receover his drought losses by keeping a greater number of cattle and by ploughing more, the capacity of the soil is being systematically overtaxed. This therefore has a cumulative detrimental effect on the soil. The concern about this situation has, as we know, met with a wide response in this House in recent years, and this problem has from time to time been subjected to a close scrutiny. I am grateful for the machinery which has been established, for the framework of our Soil Conservation Act, within which this problem can be tackled as well as for the financial assistance which is being made available to our farmers in order to help them to make a contribution.
Yet I wonder whether it is not time this problem was researched in depth, and a purposeful and total onslaught launched on it. We must not forget—and this is a generally accepted fact—that there is a very close interaction between the economic activities of man and his environment, in other words, an interaction between civilization and the soil on which it has been built. On the one hand we have man who wants his needs satisfied and who, in order to do so, changes his natural environment and converts it into a cultural landscape, on which he can build his civilization. On the other hand, the natural environment, with its specific soil conditions, its climate, its flora and fauna, is continually offering resistance, so that we have an eternal process of action and reaction. We see this all around us in nature all the time. It is obvious therefore that if we want to flourish on the soil—a soil which we desire should keep us for all time—we will have to ensure that there is the necessary harmonious interaction between our activities and this soil. We shall have to ponder anew the question of how we should order our way of life, so as to be able to conserve that so necessary balance. We shall have to examine our own conscience and ask ourselves the serious question whether there are no undesirable qualities in our pattern of civilization which cannot be reconciled with the capacity of the soil. In short, we shall have to try to find a method which would combine the creations of our brain, the results of our skill, in harmony with organic nature.
This is to my mind the basis of the problem and the challenge with which we of this generation are faced to-day. If we succeed in that, this soil will in fact bear us for all time, but if we do not, it is possible that we, too, will sooner or later go the same way as Mesopotamia of yore.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege on my debut in this House sincerely to congratulate the hon. member for Winburg on his maiden speech. I am convinced that if the hon. member continues to make such contributions in this House, he will not disappoint his constituents in any way.
However, I want to broach a matter which I think demands the attention of both young and old in South Africa. I want to make an appeal to this House to-day by asking all of you, as responsible members of the House and as citizens of South Africa, to see to it that the necessary precautionary action is taken to prevent deterioration from setting in in the mental attitudes and thinking of young South Africa. I am not doing this because I think South Africa is on the verge of a revolution. I am doing it to clear up any misunderstanding which may exist. Therefore I want to plead to-day for closer and better communication among the generation of yesterday, the generation of to-day and the generation of tomorrow. I am convinced that if those in authority to-day were to lose contact or even the leadership, they might find themselves handing over the reins to certain revolutionary elements. We need not look far in this regard. We need not even, look at the communist countries of the world. In this regard we need only look at the leader of the Western world, America. In America the seniors are having sleepless nights over the behaviour of some of their young partners. In America an absolute feeling of overthrowing the existing order and authority has arisen on the part of the youth. This is the case to such an extent that a very brilliant, but, to my mind, very dangerous person, namely Prof. Marcuse, of one of the Californian universities, has discovered a new group of people who, in his opinion, can be better and more easily used by Communism to achieve its object. This man went so far as to reject the theories of Lenin and Stalin, particularly the old slogan. “Workmen of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.” This man has discovered a new group of people who he thinks can be used more easily by Communism for its purpose. He thinks it is a group other than the workers’ group. He regards this group as the neglected group in the existing society. It consists of the young person, the student, the senior members of the youth, the 18 to 30-year-olds. This person felt so strongly about his theory that he assisted in the establishment of a militant organization, namely the Student Democrat Society. These people are militantly inclined and are ready for any revolution which may occur.
The point which I want to come to, is that Communism appreciates the value of the youth. Therefore I believe that we as conservative, intelligent people should pay special attention to the youth and their points of view, and should not disregard their thinking. We must be conversant with and take note of their outlook and their attitudes to ideas. I believe that we must go out from here and establish contact and a better relationship with them. We must offer positive, consistent and clear leadership in order to show sympathy towards a group of people who are regarded by Communism as a field for agitation and as valuable for the purpose of achieving an object.
I believe that I would be neglecting my duty if in the course of my parliamentary career I did not present the case of responsible youth and responsible young South Africa. I am doing this precisely because I myself am a member of young South Africa and a leader of the youth in the political sphere. For this very reason I am aware, and intimately aware, of the. struggle of responsible youth, who are from time to time stigmatized with labels such as irresponsibility, barbarism, disrespect towards existing order, liberalism and so forth, to be assimilated in and accepted by senior South Africa. Over the past 25 centuries, as recorded by historians, there has never been a period in which the older generation was satisfied with the younger. In every period there was talk of impudence, disobedience, idleness, disrespect and even effeminacy. I believe that these attitudes exist in South Africa as well, and that to-day they are perhaps more drastic and more antagonistic in nature; therefore, even though I am a young man myself, I want to ask this House, as the fathers of the nation, as the lawmakers and as the leading figures, for a reappraisal of the alliance between generations with a view to the future development of communal relations. I am convinced that separation in the field of mutual communication on the same wavelength can have detrimental effects on the relationship between young and senior South Africa.
In addition, I want to say at once that I think South Africa can consider itself fortunate that it does have a responsible youth, if one thinks in terms of the problems of so many other parts of the world. I want to mention this for the very reason that I believe that we have the opportunity to take precautionary action at this stage already and to prevent in South Africa what was too late to be prevented in other parts of the world. I regard the cardinal problem involved in this matter throughout the world as being the traditionalism of the adult as against the unconscious revolt and innate striving of the youth to achieve something. This feeling of power is a psychological cause in which youth rises in revolt against the existing order and authority. This innate urge to fight, whether in a war or against authority, plays a very large part, and all the more in this tensionless social structure in which the youth are growing up. In order to give expression to this feeling of power, the youth creates opportunities for themselves through a variety of channels.
I would say we must solve this problem not by dictating to the youth what to do, and this is not to say that the youth must avoid making mistakes, but that they themselves must take the initiative and must accept responsibility. The youth should not be overwhelmed in their thinking and in their ideas, but they should be afforded an opportunity to display initiative. I believe the youth must seek for South Africa what is new and better for society. If they failed to do this, it would be a sign of stagnation.
I also believe that the question as to what the new and the better would be, should not be decided in terms of the norms of the present-day adult, because what is right for the traditionalist may be wrong for the youth, and vice versa. I want to say immediately that as far as morals are concerned, this statement may perhaps sound irresponsible, but I believe that when a change takes place in this changing world, moderation again sets in after a revolution, if I may put it this way. The balance is restored as soon as mutual understanding arises. The point I want to make is therefore that communication and mutual understanding must be improved so that the one group does not simply reject the other on the grounds of traditionalism or on the grounds of the innate desire to achieve.
Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.
When the House adjourned, I was making the point that we also do not want to see the attitudes of, on the one hand, the traditionalist, the senior in South Africa, and, on the other hand, the young person, who has an innate desire to achieve, being rejected simply because they represent traditionalism or simply because they represent a striving to achieve. I want to say that we are faced with changed circumstances in a changing world. While it is very difficult to determine whether the world is deteriorating or improving for the youth, there is no doubt in my mind that the world is changing and that the way of life is changing with it. Every generation has its own problems under different circumstances, and therefore I believe that the so-called youth problem is groundlessly and unjustly regarded as such. Realism tells me that stagnation or traditionalism or “verkramptheid”, if I may use the word, calls for a new order, movement and progress, new ideas and an enlightened attitude. After all, we must try to restore a balance. The youth are not a problem simply because they are young or because they are impatient. They have tremendous challenges and competition to face. They have to work, in the true sense of the word, in order to establish their position in society. I believe that these revolutionary changes and this new order rest in the hands of young South Africa, and therefore I want to say that new ideas must be original, new movements must be responsible, and individual initiative and the striving towards what is better for South Africa must be stable. I believe it is in this that the seniors in South Africa can reach out a helping hand and provide guidance so that the youth may move in the right direction.
Sir, the man and woman in a position of authority to-day, grew up in completely different circumstances than the youth of to-day are doing. The adults of to-day grew up in the problem-ridden twenties and in the agitated thirties, those periods of depression, of unemployment, of economic backwardness, of war and various other factors which perhaps do not exist to-day. These people grew up through maturity in themselves. They grew up in crisis years of international tension, whether economic, political or military. They had no choice other than to accept responsibility at an early stage. The youth of to-day, on the other hand, are growing up in reasonable economic and social stability, in international peace, if one can call it peace, and even to some extent in equality of opportunity. This stability they owe to the adults of to-day, who made it their responsibility to educate the youth in new and better circumstances according to their standards, safeguarded against the dangers and the problems which threatened them. I believe that they have achieved their oject and that the results have been satisfactory to a certain extent, but one nevertheless finds that the values and the norms of the existing order are in many spheres not the values and the order of young South Africa, and possibly this is the reason why others are being sought.
How is one to determine the future way of thinking of the youth? Must one do so by indoctrination of existing orders, or must one perhaps do so by mutual, reciprocal understanding and communication between adults and the youth? I believe it would be a healthy state of affairs if the adults, the people in authority, were able to tune in to the wavelength of the youth when the opportunity presents itself, in order to communicate on the level of the youth’s way of thinking and, by so doing, to remain in close contact in order to give guidance in the right direction. I feel we must accept that existing orders must not necessarily be the orders of the future, but that new times bring new people and that new people bring new ideas in new circumstances. Let us therefore at all times see an alliance between the generations as being the pointer to a better and new South Africa.
I believe that senior South Africa must face one fact, and this is that the youth want to move forwards and outwards, if I may venture to use this word, and I believe it is the duty of senior South Africa to provide the opportunities for the youth to make contact with the life of society in all its spheres. The accusation made in this respect is usually that of inquisitiveness and even impatience, but when it is a healthy inquisitiveness and an objective impatience, I can only see a positive result. The youth want to move forward vigorously, and the onus rests on senior South Africa to offer vigorous leadership, but at the same time this leadership must be given unconditionally and the choice of accepting it must rest with the youth. This process may produce frustrations, but these must not conveniently be attributed to the so-called “generation gap”. Rational, sincere and honest leadership will, in my opinion, overcome this problem. The youth expect consistency and clarity from society. I believe in all sincerity that young South Africa wants a share in shaping its own future, and indoctrination will be viewed critically, and when this attitude is regarded by senior South Africa as a motion of no confidence on the part of the young people, I believe senior South Africa is still out of touch with the attitude of the youth. I believe, Sir, and with this I want to conclude, that we must see to it that the standpoint of the youth of South Africa is not disregarded, because I believe that when senior South Africa no longer knows our youth and loses contact with them, we shall be creating the opportunity for the theories of a man like Prof. Marcuse.
It is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon member, who has just resumed his seat, on his maiden speech. I think that, in view of the time in which we are living, the subject he chose for his speech is a very topical one, and I want to say quite frankly that of all the maiden speeches I have heard from his side of the House, his was the best, and for that reason I want to congratulate him on behalf of the House.
I should like to refer to two matters, two announcements which were made by the Government recently. The first announcement was made by the hon. the Prime Minister on the enrichment of uranium and the second one was made by the Minister of Economic Affairs on the proposed mineral ore project at Saldanha, and I want to deal with the future effect these two proposed projects will have on the economic structure and. in fact, on our whole livelihood here in the Western Cape.
In the past few years great concern has repeatedly been expressed by experts and * bodies about what I warn to call the future pattern of the little Boland. I myself was one of the Cape Cassandras who predicted a bloomy future for this region, the oldest civilized region of South Africa, if more active steps were not taken for the future of this part of the country. After this announcement was made by the State, certain bodies came forward recently and considered the situation. The first problem we immediately recognized, was the position of our Coloured people in the Boland. Please note: The position of our Coloured people in the Boland. During the past years thousands upon thousands of Coloureds have been concentrated by the powers of centralization in what I want to call a subeconomic twilight-world on the Cape Flats, a twilight-world in which a large percentage of these thousands of Coloured people are subsisting to-day without making any noticeable contribution towards the labour structure in the Boland. Sir, there is one further aspect which is a source of concern to us. We had to point out in addition that, according to the present general calculation, in 30 years’ time, by the year 2,000, the ratio in metropolitan Cape Town alone will be 2.1 Coloured persons for every 1 white person. In the whole of the Western Province the ratio will be 2.4 Coloured persons to every 1 white person, and in the Cape Province as a whole the ratio will be 2 Coloured persons to every 1 white person. Sir, we had to point out frequently during the past few years that this situation, despite the fact that we had done much to improve relations, may be described as a twofold symbiosis in which the white man and the Coloured man within the lesser Boland have to live in close contact with and adapt to one another from day to day. Sir, during the past year this situation has, in fact, deteriorated. In many respects this situation in the lesser Boland to-day amounts to what I want to call a threefold symbiosis in which the white man and the Coloured man and the black man have to live in close contact with one another. In the heart of this brown metropolis, the concentration of thousands upon thousands of Coloured people on the Cape Flats, we have the townships of Langa and Nyanga: in Langa alone there are 80,000 unattached Bantu males who are almost all the time engaged in a process of integration with the Cape Coloureds. It is as if we are, in many respects and owing to circumstances, mercilessly pushing the Coloured people, who speak our language, whose religion is the same as tours, who are out and out Westerners and who are not enjoying the freedom of a separate homeland at this stage, over to the side of the black majority in South Africa In our Boland situation to-day there are people who are beginning to think along completely different lines. We can no longer with a clear conscience continue to push the large Coloured population of the Boland with its Western way of life over to the side of the large majority of Banttu.
What does the Transvaler say?
There is a new realization among our people to-day, that we will have to accommodate, particularly in the economic sphere, the Coloured population within the future pattern of the Boland, and to allow them to enter into fuller and more effective partnership in our White Western civilization. Sir, I am going to leave for the time being this problem within a regional context at that.
There is a second situation which has been causing those of us who live in the Boland concern and which has hampered our growth pattern during the past few years and that is our water situation in the Boland. We do not have gold here in the Boland; we do not have diamonds; we do not have raw materials, but the sine quo non to us here in the Boland is water. The provision of water in the little Boland has resulted in all energy for development and growth in the past, particularly in recent years, being concentrated for the most part in and around Cape Town. The latest example I am able to mention, Sir, is the 40 million gallons of water we are at present able to bring from the vicinity of the Voelvlei Dam right into the heart of Cape Town. I am not discussing now the question of whether we should do it or not. I am merely mentioning this as a fact in the context of our pattern of development, and in addition to this I want to state that the time has come for us, as inhabitants of the Boland, to oppose far more drastically this tendency to draw to an increasing extent on the greater water potential of the Boland. Sir, there is a third aspect and that is the fact that our agricultural land in the Boland to-day is being swallowed up to an increasing extent by the present pattern of development. During the past years the line of growth ran from Cape Town, in a northerly direction between two larger areas, along the main railway line to the north and along the road connection in a northerly direction— Cape Town, its northern urban areas, Durbanville, Kraaifontein, Paarl, Wellington and even as far as Worcester. During the course of this process Some of our best agricultural land in the Boland has been absorbed by housing projects and in the industrial sphere in recent years. The time has come for us to consider this matter in a much more realistic and even more drastic way. Sir, two announcements were recently made by the State. The first statement concerned the very important announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister on the enrichment of uranium or the utilization of nuclear power in South Africa, while the second very important announcement on our Boland complex was made by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs on the proposed mineral ore project at Saldanha Bay. Let me say at once that these two announcements were great news to us as inhabitants of the Boland or to us as inhabitants of the little Boland. These announcements cause us to look to the future with a new vision from the situation I have tried to sketch; this creates a desire in us to co-operate with new enthusiasm and to build together on a new and more organized future pattern for the Boland as the oldest civilized region in the country. We now feel like forging ahead again with renewed courage; we feel like making new experiments, running risks and do pioneer work within the framework of the new future pattern of the Boland. Sir, four basic aspects arise out of these two announcements which, to my mind, should receive the attention of the Government and this is what I want to discuss this evening. The first thing I want to ask the Government is what I should like to call a new and calculated emphasis on the line of development between Cape Town and Saldanha. I have tried to indicate to you how some of the best agricultural land in South Africa was absorbed in the past because this line of development moved in a northerly direction throughout our whole pattern. On well-known experts, Professor S. P. Cilliers, in an analysis of this situation (translation) —
In the light of these two announcements made by the Government I want to suggest that the time is ripe for us to view this line of development in a new light. We can begin initiating a new growth urge and in so doing impart a new future pattern to the entire Boland situation. It is my humble opinion that this new line of growth holds the only key and guarantee for a more organized future pattern for this particular Boland region.
I should like to point out now that the first nuclear project to be built in South Africa is going to be situated on this line of growth, Cape Town/Saldanha. As a result of that a completely new source of power is going to be established in our Boland complex which one could, when this source is analysed in de-fail and scientifically, Wax quite lyrical about in many respects. I cannot motivate this in full. I want to mention four aspects here, however. According to our scientists, the first desalination of sea water will take place here towards the mid-eighties. On this line of growth this project will greatly increase our existing sources of power in the Boland. In the third place, this project will relieve the pressure on our railway link from the north, because we will find that millions of tons of coal which have to be conveyed to the Western Cape along this railway line every year, will no longer be needed and it Will thus afford the necessary relief. In the fourth place, this new source of power will enable us to pump our water supplies within the Boland complex from the one storage area to the other in order to bring about improved distribution within this particular area.
Secondly, on this line of growth I am pleading for now, there is situated an old, traditional Coloured township Mamre. I now want to advance a plea …
Is that a homeland for the Coloureds now?
No, listen carefully to what I am saying. I want to advocate that we should immediately start developing Mamre, the old traditional Coloured township, on this new line of growth as a prestige township for our Coloured people of the Boland. This can be done, because there is still space and in this particular area we do not have to start creating a twilight land of subeconomic houses. In this area we will never reach the situation that we will have to use our best agricultural land in the Boland for this purpose. The coastline in this particular area counts among the most beautiful coastlines we have in the whole of South Africa, and there is space, There will be no need for us to tread on one another’s toes when we want to establish a lido for the Coloured people on the seafront as we have been doing these last few years in the vicinity of Milnerton. In short, in this area we can build a prestige township for our Coloured people where the Coloureds can be brought into it as far as the planning thereof is concerned and which is something that will not in due course deteriorate: into a subeconomic twilight land. Here is an opportunity for generous new spatial development for our large Coloured population in the Boland.
I want to go further. I want to advance a plea for a new industrial complex to be established in the vicinity of this Coloured town because there is so much space available. There is space on all sides and in this case there is no need for the best agricultural land in the Boland to be absorbed. In order to stimulate the necessary growth momentum or the necessary urge for growth, I feel that at this stage two principles should be accepted by our Government as regards the pattern of development in the Boland. We owe this to our Coloured population in the Boland. The first thing I want to ask for, is whether it would not be possible to grant border area benefits in the case of a place of this nature as I have advocated here, In the past years we have accepted the principle of border area benefits in the development pattern of South Africa and a divided political set-up in which we want to give new geographical recognition to the large black majority in the country. The time has come for us to accept this principle in our programme of new spatial development for our large Coloured population here in the Boland.
I want to mention a second alternative. Would it not be possible to introduce a significant tax assessment scheme on a sliding scale in: respect of certain companies which might be interested in the establishment of such a complex in order to serve as a special stimulus? When analysing the growth patterns in Europe to-day, one sees that this type of aid is being given in such countries as England, Holland and Germany. It is true that during the past 20 years 17 such cities with populations which at present vary from 30,0 to 40,000 were established in England according to this formula.
In the third place, my plea concerns this new line of development as regards the Saldanha project itself. I do not want to deal at length with this, except to say that the value of this project does not lie in the revenue it is going to earn for South Africa. It lies in the fact that this project holds the key to the establishment of a new future pattern for the Boland. From this a fourth Iscor might result later on, a ship repair industry and an oil refinery, in other words, a totally new growth point within the economy of the Boland. As far as this line of development is concerned, could we not at this stage obtain the services of four or five of our best planners in South Africa to lay down a general planning at this stage of this new line of growth within the Boland? We are duty bound to create new scope and order for this part of South Africa, the oldest civilized part of South Africa, namely the Boland.
The second aspect I want to mention and which should be considered immediately, is a new approach to the water potential of the Boland. Now, I know that we are at this stage waiting on the report of the Western Cape Wafer Planning Committee. The Minister concerned expects this report of the committee to reach him towards the end of this year, and there are two aspects in respect of which I want to advance a plea. Since I have said that water is the sine quo non of the Boland, could we not consider at this stage making this Cape Western Water Planning Committee a permanent committee that will plan this real source of power in the Boland in future and grant priorities for this new Boland pattern? I do not want to anticipate the recommendations of the Water Planning Committee, except as far as two matters are concerned. As far as the priorities are concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider two points well in time. As regards the establishment of this new growth point, I want to ask that the potential of our water in the lower Berg River should immediately be considered from a planning point of view. I do not want to elaborate on this. In the second place, the hon. the Minister should consider the water potential at a different point, a point which received the attention of the Department of Water Affairs during the past years, namely a possible dam project at Suurvlak. In the last couple of years we pumped a great deal of money into the Tulbagh Valley, in this particular disaster area of the Boland, thanks to the good work of our Cabinet. We pumped money into this area for repair work, but if we really want to do something worthwhile for this particular area in order to stimulate a new spirit and creative urge among the people in that area, we should make this water scheme available to the Tulbagh Valley now. This will encourage and bring about a new spirit among the people in this huge disaster area of the Boland.
I want to conclude by saying that we as inhabitants of the Boland are viewing the future in a new light as a result of the latest two announcements I have mentioned. May a completely new future result from this spirit for this oldest civilized part of our country.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very great privilege for me to be making my maiden speech as a member of this House this evening. As a newcomer, I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the way in which you received me and the other young members and newcomers here. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of this House, the Chief Whip and the other whips, as well as all the other hon. members of this House who made one feel so at home here in such a short time.
I am exceptionally privileged to represent the constituency of Kempton Park. This constituency consists mainly of the two municipal areas, Kempton Park and Edenvale. Furthermore, it is surrounded by five other constituencies, and it is in fact difficult for me to determine when I am speaking of the constituency and when I am speaking of the municipality, because in some cases only a street separates the one constituency from the other in this large municipal area. Kempton Park is probably well-known to most hon. members, because our largest international airport is situated here, the entrance to South Africa, where hon. members have probably all been guests of Kempton Park at some time or other, and have had the opportunity to experience the hospitality and friendliness of Kempton Park and the staff at the airport. This airport is really one of our greatest assets. Because of the very good record of the staff and the Airways, we have succeeded not only in making it the entrance to South Africa, but it is here that the foreigner, the tourist from abroad and the immigrant, gain their fist impressions of our country, South Africa. In this respect I think we can speak with pride of the grand record which has been established for us by our Airways.
I must give hon. members some indication of what is happening in Kempton Park at the moment. There are probably few consituencies in which the growth has been so phenomenal as in Kempton Park. To-day here are as many as 57,000 to 60,000 people living in these two municipal areas. In Kempton Park more than: 10,000 plots and in Edenvale more than 6,000 have been built up. Another 13,000 are going to be built up. To give hon. members some idea of how phenomenal this growth has been, I want to point out to them that in the past year the valuations amounted to R142 million in Kempton Park and R60 million in Edenvale, a total of approximately R200 million. In the past year, building plans amounting to more than R20.5 million were approved.
Looking at the capital expenditure which was made in this short period of ten years, you see these remarkable figures: Ten years ago, in 1960, the valuation in Kempton Park was a mere R½ million; five years later it was R4 million; these figures are approximate; in 1970 it was R11,575,200. This same feature is apparent in Edenvale. Recently we again read in the newspapers that a great fuss was made of the phenomenal expansion in Eden-vale and its environs. Here we have a huge development taking place, which will involve 20,0 residential plots. It is a large complex of buildings, including a business centre, which is going to cause a complete revolution there. I In this report mention was made not only of this great development, but also of an inland sea with artificially produced waves which is going to be built there. If the Transvaal already has everything, and is going to get a sea as well in future, I shall not be surprised if a private motion is introduced before long that Parliament be moved to the constituency of Kempton Park.
I now want to refer to another matter, which has already been discussed this afternoon. It is in connection with housing schemes. A few years ago we obtained a loan of R3½million in Kempton Park from the Department of Community Development. With that money, 635 three-bedroomed homes are being built on 96 morgen of ground which belongs to the Council. Of these homes, 342 have been completed; and 250 of them are being completed, at a rate of 20 a month. This Council has another 64 morgen of ground which is available for future development. Artisans, clerks, policemen and traffic officials live in this township. Houses can be bought there with a deposit of R200 and an average monthly instalment of R35. This scheme was chosen from nine plants which were made available by the Department of Community Development. I do not want to burden hon. members with many figures, but the cost of these houses, including the land and the services provided there, varies between R5,603 and R5,896. Not one of these houses costs more than R6,000. In the municipal area of Edenvale this scheme is not quite in its stride yet, but great progress has already been made in this connection. All the initial problems have been solved, thanks to the cooperation we received from the Department. Consequently, we are looking forward to a great scheme which can be developed there. This is in addition to the scheme which is going to be developed by the Community Development Board. An old age home has already been erected in Edenvale. The erection of an old-age home in Kempton Park is being envisaged, and provision is being made for a sub-economic housing scheme. The scheme envisaged there at the moment is for 100 flat units at a cost of R375,000 and a building with single quarters at a cost of R250,000. This project will therefore amount to a total of approximately R600,000. I feel it is my duty on behalf of these municipalities and the inhabitants of Kempton Park to convey our sincere thanks to the Department, which cooperated wholeheartedly with us and which gave us all this help and support in order to meet the housing needs there.
In addition, Kempton Park is a very large and important industrial town. The industries there are of such a nature that we do not really find them in all the cities of our country. These industries have the peculiar feature that they are housed in beautiful, imposing, attractive buildings in this former rural area without there being any overcrowding. There are exceptionally beautiful gardens. In addition, the industries do not pollute with smog. This is really to the credit of the industrialists in that area. Although a large number of these industries do not fall in my constituency, they are situated in the municipal areas mentioned. The geographic situation with its road and rail connections, the airways and the progressive municipalities contributed towards these large developments in places such as Isando, Spartan, Edenvale and Sebenza. This is of course apart from the many other important factories such as, for example, the Atlas Aircraft Factory and the Kelvin Power Station, which are also situated in this area. In addition, there are excellent residential areas. As I have said, it is an exceptional industrial centre. Consequently, large business and trade complexes were attracted there. All this development, of course, created very large problems for the city councils. These problems were particularly of a financial nature. In this respect, too, I can report that we received very sincere co-operation from the Department concerned in meeting these problems and in providing essential services such as electric power, roads, water, sewerage, health services, libraries, fire brigades. transport services, etc., for the large developments there. We invariably received the wholehearted co-operation of provincial authorities in respect of schools and hospitals. We also received the fullest co-operation whenever we asked the Central Government for assistance. However, one important bottleneck remains, and this is the question of public buildings. Here too the shortage of money is an important problem. There is a great need for magistrates’ offices police stations, post offices and further development and expansion of the telephone services. In the last-mentioned respect, ample provision was made in the present Budget, something for which we are very grateful. We are looking forward to the eventual solution of all these problems.
From the nature of the case a constituency such as this is not without problems. For example, I am thinking of the problem of aircraft noise, which we shall definitely have to tackle in future. There is already a problem of air pollution, which does not actually originate from our factories, but from the neighbouring complexes. We shall have to overcome the labour problem. I should like to point out that in this large development there are no fewer than 16 schools. For your information, I may just mention that until recently the largest Afrikaans-medium high school in the world was situated in Kempton Park.
In conclusion, I want to deal briefly with what I consider to be our greatest national asset, namely our youth. [ want to make it very clear that I am one of those who believe in our youth. I am one of those who believe that there is nothing wrong with our youth. I believe that our youth is basically sound and ready for the future. Because this is the position. I believe that our youth is our greatest national asset, our most important raw material and at the same time our greatest responsibility. The hon. member who has just sat down, told us a little while ago of the important announcements made this session in connection with uranium, the Saldanha Bay scheme, etc. All these schemes are exceptionally important to us and I doubt if our people already appreciate their real magnitude. Without detracting from these things, I want to say very clearly that to me our greatest national asset is our children and our young people. In this youth I see the key to the future of the Republic of South Africa. Because this youth represents the future, we must invest in this asset now.
This brings me to the question of the teachers. I am worried about the staff position in our country. I believe the time has arrived for a proper investigation to be carried out to determine the staff position properly. I am aware of the fact that work is being done in this connection by certain authorities, teachers’ authorities and staff associations. Because teaching is the mother of all professions, we cannot allow the manpower shortage to affect education adversely. The Republic of South Africa has its own peculiar problems, although it could be said that there are teacher shortages in other parts of the world and in Europe as well. These people are the educators of our nation. The teacher undoubtedly holds one of the most elevated and noblest vocations which one can hold, because as an educator he sees to the physical development of the children, teaches them skills imparts knowledge to them, develops their capabilities, forms their characters and equips them for life—hail the teacher! This great responsibility rests heavily on the shoulders of the educator. I want to quote briefly from a recent circular of the S.A.K.—
Therefore a nation must ensure that the best of its money and its most outstanding boys and girls are applied to this important position. Here a nation’s future is determined. A nation which neglects its duty in this field, falters and leans on false security. A shortage of teachers is the most vulnerable spot which the enemy can attack. The labour shortage, of which we hear every day, can perhaps be solved by using non-white labour, but definitely not in the case of education. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of National Education and hon. members of this House that we must pay attention to the youth of South Africa and to education. We must man our schools with only the best people which the Republic of South Africa can offer, because they must work with our most valuable raw material, namely our youth, the future of South Africa. Let us tackle and examine this question frankly. If we find that we must pay more, we must spend more. We cannot back away. We simply must find the money. It will be the best investment we have ever made. We can do justice to this important matter of education only if we have the right attitude. The attitude of the whole population must change, if necessary.
I want to conclude by making an appeal and by saying that I am aware that a great deal is being written in the newspapers in this regard, and I should like to make a very earnest request to our newspapers to handle this question of education very carefully and with great discretion and that they must not allow this very deserving matter, which should be Priority No. 1, to be distorted. It must not be possible to say that a false impression has been given of education and the teacher. We cannot prejudice this matter and thereby harm ourselves. I want to make an appeal to every parent and the entire private sector that everyone must be prepared to make sacrifices and to co-operate in this very important respect wherever necessary.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kempton Park for a well prepared and well delivered speech. We wish him a happy stay in this House. I am pleased that he dealt with Kempton Park and then with Edenvale, because it gives me an opening to deal with another matter as far as Edenvale is concerned.
But may I also, while I am feeling generous, offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Moorreesburg, because he has had the courage to say in this House after 22 years what is obvious to all of us except to members of the Nationalist Party. I wonder what the hon. the Prime Minister would have said if he had heard the hon. member’s speech, because the Prime Minister, when dealing with the Coloured people, threw up his arms and said he left it to the future. But this hon. member at least had the courage to say that there is a problem and that he thinks we may be able to solve it one way or the other. I am sure he will have several comments coming to him from members from other provinces.
He did mention two matters here which I think bear studying. He said that the future of the Western Cape would depend on two factors, and one of them was the development of Saldanha Bay. We all want Saldanha Bay to develop. It must be one of our ports for export, but it is not going to be easy to do it. The depth of water there makes it difficult and if Saldanha Bay was going to be the bay we would like to see it, we must remember that it would have been developed long ago before Cape Town, if it was suitable. No we have to bring in the engineers and the scientists to make it an available port. The next point that the hon. member dealt with was the desalination of water and he hoped that that would bring some prosperity to the Cape. Well, desalination by atomic processes is a very expensive process and the figure that was given to me this evening shows that it costs 40 cents to produce 1,000 gallons of water. So obviously it can only be used by those industries which show very high profits. If the hon. member is able to introduce those industries into the Cape, he will do very well.
But there was another interesting point the hon. member spoke about. He wanted decentralization, and this time I think he broke away from the border industry concept of the Nationalist Party. He wants decentralization of a different nature; he wants true decentralization. He wants decentralization to come about to form a viable area in the Boland. [Interjection.] Oh, the hon. member does not want that. Then I must have misunderstood him. Anyway, that is how I saw it and I thought he had a point, but I am wrong.
Now I want to deal with another matter which to me is very important. A new principle has been expounded from the Transvaal in regard to health services for the people throughout the country. The hon. member for Kemp-ton Park, who has just left the Chamber, mentioned Edenvale. In the vicinity of Edenvale there is a hospital. This hospital has been in existence for many years, and it was brought into existence to help the people of the area. There is in this hospital a division for non-Whites and this non-white section of the hospital serves a very useful purpose and it is: doing a good job of work. The hon. member who deals with hospitals in the Transvaal, Mr. De Haas, has decided that because of Government policy—not a provincial whim, but because of Government policy—he intends closing this hospital and opening a new one 17 miles from the present one. I have no comeback as far as a new hospital is concerned. I want to see that and I want to see it being done quickly. There is no reason given for the closing of the Edenvale Hospital at all other than that it is Government policy.
If this is true, that this is Government policy, is it the intention then of this Government to allow the closing of other hospitals that have been established for non-Whites or cater for non-Whites? He has to make this clear to us now, and if it is not Government policy Mr. De Haas and the Transvaal Provincial Council must give us good cause for the closing of the Edenvale Hospital. The hon. the Minister of Health will know what will happen to our health services if he closes the other hospitals which deal with the Bantu or Coloureds or Indians in the large towns. They are attached to white hospitals in many cases.
Take Johannesburg. There you have the very large Baragwanath Hospital. That hospital is in a white urban area. The non-white hospital attached to the General Hospital is in a white group area. The King Edward VII Hospital in Durban is in a white group area. There is a hospital dealing with non-Whites attached to the Pretoria Hospital. Is it going to be the policy of this Government to close these hospitals? Why on earth does this Government allow an M.E.C. in the Transvaal to close a hospital and allow him to say to the public that this is Government policy? And now I want to know whether it is Government policy or not, because if it is Government policy, this Government is doing a shocking thing to these people who are served by these hospitals.
Is it Government policy?
Sir, I am not guessing in this matter. To me it is a very important matter. In this connection I am going to quote from the provincial Hansard; I want to make no mistake about this.
You had better not.
I am not going to.
You have always been mistaken so far.
Is it Government policy?
Let me quote from page 5964 of the Transvaal Hansard. This is Mr. De Haas, M.P.C., dealing with hospitals, speaking—
Well and good.
What is wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with that. He went on—
Is the reason why he closes the hospital that it is Government policy or is it because it is on the doorstep of somebody’s white home? Is that the reason for closing it? The hon. the Minister must tell me because the people of Edenvale are very concerned about this; the people of Johannesburg are very concerned about it and the people of all the other metropolitan areas in South Africa are interested in this. If they are going to close hospitals then they must tell us.
Who approached you on this?
Does it make any difference? Here a provincial councillor says that he is interested in the closing.
Nobody has ever approached me.
Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that he did not know anything about this?
Of course, I read about it in the Press but nobody approached me.
Is he in favour of the erection of a hospital in a different area?
May I ask the hon. member to tell the House on behalf of whom he is speaking, who approached him and whether it was a by letter, telegram or verbally?
He is talking about the Rand Daily Mail.
That is a fair question. Sir, I am a Transvaler. I am interested in health. I am interested in what is going on in the Transvaal as far as sick people are concerned. I am interested when a provincial councillor approaches me and tells me about this. I am interested in what is going on at this hospital. I am interested in the fact that when I telephoned the hospital personally and tried to find out whether anybody could tell me why it was being closed, I was told that they have been instructed not to say a word to anybody. I am not surprised that the hon. the Minister does not know; he was not told about it either. It has been kept quiet. Sir, those are the people who told me. There was a public meeting in Edenvale. What took place at Edenvale was reported. There was a deputation of students who went to see the Director of Hospitals and who were concerned about the future. The hon. the Minister is ignorant about these things. If he does know about it, why is he not honest and why does he not tell us about it?
Reply to my fair question to you.
Does the hon. the Minister want to catch me out on something? Sir, the interesting part is that the Minister has a colleague in this House, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who has a different idea about hospitals. He comes from Edenvale. Here is an extract from a letter written by him. It reads as follows. I do not know whether he used the word “Africans” or not, because that word appears in inverted commas. He probably used the word “Bantu”. I quote from Hansard—
The hon. the Deputy Minister is talking here about the white area of Johannesburg and he is talking about this hospital. Sir, I want to ask the Minister whether he is in favour of closing Edenvale Hospital, yes or no?
Nobody has approached him.
Is the hon. the Minister afraid to answer “yes” or “no”? If he does not know, let him say that he has not studied the position yet. I am giving him a way out. Is he in favour of closing the hospital or not?
I am in favour of giving better services to the Bantu people. The new hospital will be a specialist hospital. This is not.
Sir, this is a simple question. Here is a hospital serving the public. It is concerned with all the servants working in the area; it serves people affected by accidents and calamities and all that sort of thing. They are all served in this hospital which is doing an excellent job of work. There is not a single doctor who has asked to have it closed. There is not a single resident who has asked to have it closed. There is not a single politician who wants to see it closed except Mr. De Haas. Sir, I asked the hon. the Minister a simple question but I will put it in another way; I will make it easier for him: Would the Minister of Health help to keep it open?
He has not been approached.
I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development whether he would like to see the Edenvale Hospital closed or kept open?
I do not know enough about it and you do not either.
This is a very important matter that we are dealing with. Unless I can get an honest reply from the Minister of Health and unless we can get an honest reply from the other Ministers who are involved in this, we must take it that it is State policy to close non-European hospitals in urban white areas.
We are talking about Edenvale Hospital.
I have told the hon. the Minister that this is State policy, and State policy cannot only affect one hospital in one area. There are other hospitals in similar positions and I want to know what they are going to do about it.
Sir, I want to refer to something now which comes directly within the Minister’s province. It has nothing to do with provincial decisions; this is a State matter. Does the hon. the Minister know that it is State policy now to close certain tuberculosis hospitals?
Yes, of course.
Are you prepared to keep these hospitals open in white urban areas?
They will be open only as long as they are necessary.
In view of the fact that the figures we have show that there is a continual increase in the number who are getting tuberculosis, how does the hon. the Minister know when it is no longer necessary? The number of cases increases by the day and it is no secret. This can be found in any statistical report.
Are they hospital cases?
It does not matter whether they are hospital cases or not. A man may not toe a hospital case to-day tout he may be one to-morrow. The hon. the Minister is a medical practitioner.
He was a medical practitioner. The hon. the Minister knows that an ambulatory case to-day may toe a serious infectious case to-morrow.
No, you have lost touch.
The hon. the Minister does not know when a hospital ought to be opened or closed and I do not know what happens with tuberculosis …
I told you that if there is accommodation in the Bantu areas I will certainly close the hospitals in the white areas.
Now, that is a little different. Now the hon. the Minister is talking about opening hospitals in Bantu areas. Has the hon. the Minister opened up hospitals in these Bantu areas? Has he made arrangements for staff in these areas?
How many beds are there provided for? Now, the hon. the Minister says he his it staffed. I take it that this staff are Bantu staff or are they white staff?
If they are available, they must toe Bantu.
This hon. Minister wants separate development and he wants to encourage the Bantu to look after his own people.
He wants to encourage Bantu doctors to go to the Bantu areas. What about the figures that he gave me yesterday concerning medical students at hospitals? In the Republic there are 157 Bantu doctors in training. Does the hon. the Minister know how many there are in the final year? He gave me the figures. If he does not, I will tell him. There are 13. Only 13 Bantu are going to qualify. Then the hon. the Minister wants to establish hospitals in Bantu areas and he wants the Bantu to look after the Bantu people, tout only 13 Bantu doctors may qualify this year.
What about the whole country?
That is for the whole country. Well, I asked the hon. the Minister to open up the universities in the urban areas that could give teaching facilities for Bantu, but he lent a deaf ear to that. When I said to him that there are dozens of people living in Soweto who would gladly go to the Wit-watersrand University in order to learn to be doctors …
Don’t talk nonsense.
What happened? The door was closed to them.
Is the Wits University prepared to take more students?
The doors were closed and he said they must go to Durban. He says they must go to Durban when it is so difficult for a Bantu girl or a Bantu boy to go from Soweto to live in Durban and to find accommodation. They find it difficult to pay for the accommodation and the university fees. How can they afford to do it? Is the hon. the Minister then surprised that he only has 13 medical students in the final year? The hon. the Minister goes further than that. He and his colleagues have done something much worse. They are today preventing doctors to practice in areas where they are needed. He is doing that because of the colour of their skins and not out of necessity. In the hon. member for Turffontein’s constituency there is an Indian doctor who looks after Bantu patients in that area. Through the efforts of the ex-member for Turffontein, Dr. Smith, who was very proud of this achievement, this doctor received notice to leave his consulting rooms and get out of Turffontein. Petitions were drawn up asking for his stay and I do not know what is now going to happen to this doctor, whether he is going to toe allowed to remain or not. In Kimberley there were three Indian doctors. What happened to them? They were not allowed to practise amongst the Bantu and were told to leave. One of the Indian doctors was brought to court because he remained in his consulting rooms. I wonder if the hon. the Minister knows about this. This doctor was fined R100 for practicing amongst Bantu in Kimberley. The magistrate said that he was very sorry that this man was brought to court, because he was doing a good service to these people. He said it was a pity that he was charged and forced to leave. After that doctor was fined R100 he was given a permit to stay. Can anyone imagine that happening in a civilized country? The necessity is there, the man is doing the service, he is brought to court and fined and then he is given a permit to stay. I wonder if they gave him his R100 back. And so the story goes on. It has happened at Boksburg, Turffontein, Kimberley, Pietermaritzburg; there seems to be no end to it. What is the object of this exercise? What is the object of hounding people who are doing a service? There is not a single Indian, Coloured or Bantu doctor to-day who is interfering with a white doctor’s practice.
That is not true.
Even if they were, they have a right to compete with the white doctor. White doctors to-day have to be like camelions which change the colour of their skins. White doctors have to work in Bantu areas because there are no Bantu doctors. The same is happening in Coloured areas and amongst Indians. The hon. the Minister knows what is happening to white doctors and the instructions the Department have issued to certain city councils. In a place like Soweto instructions have gone out that consulting rooms and professional offices, that means all offices, are not to be granted to Bantu. Soweto is a black area and I do not care how much hon. members opposite say it is in an urban area and therefore White. The only people that can practice professions in this black area are Whites, unless a black man has a permit. That is where I want to end. This permit system to-day has infiltrated into every aspect of our lives. The permit system to-day has become the norm. A man who works without a permit, is the exception. I want those hon. members to remember this. It is exceptional to-day for a man to be able to work unless he gets a permit. That goes for white professional people, Coloured people and Bantu people.
Finally I want to ask the hon. the Minister something. Would he please help to keep Edenvale hospital open? It does not matter if anybody has to lose face in this matter. The health of those people around there is much more important.
Mr. Speaker, you must please be so kind as to forgive me for having tired of listening to the sanctimoniousness of the United Party, and in particular of their senior members, who proclaim half-truths here and bring the public under the impression that this Government does certain things which is not in accordance with its policy. I want to start immediately with this hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member complains that hospitals in the white areas will eventually be closed and that they will be opened in the non-white areas. I just want to make a few remarks about this matter in passing. The hon. member probably does not know what is going on in Natal. The United Party is governing in Natal. In the white areas, where we warned them through our provincial councillors not to erect additional buildings for non-white patients at hospitals in Vryheid and Newcastle, they did so in spite of that. The point which I want to make, is that the hon. members of the United Party, when they were still in power, created situations with which we have to cope to-day and which we have to solve. Then they make the sort of statement that we, the National Party, the Government, are inhuman. Then they proclaim to the outside world that this Government now, suddenly, simply wants to close a hospital at Edenvale. If the Government announces that it is going to close a hospital they assume that it will be closed by tomorrow and that all those patients will be on the street the day after tomorrow. They do not consider the fact that the Government has a policy to implement which it announced before 1948, in 1948 and after 1948, i.e. that all hospitals for non-Whites will eventually be in non-white areas and staffed by non-white doctors who have to be trained.
What is the position now?
Just a minute. The hon. member has had his turn What is more, this hon. member, who is a senior member of the party and a medical doctor, maintained that the provincial council approached him. I now make the unqualified statement here that that is not the truth.
He did not say that.
He said that I wrote it down. He said: “When the provincial council approaches me…”.
No, no. He said: “When the provincial council approaches me
I wrote it down.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …
Yes, what is the point of order?
The point of order is that the hon. member is not …
That is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.
The hon. member for Rosettenville is a senior member of this House. Before accusing the Government of not training non-white doctors at this stage, he should have ascertained at his university, which he holds in such high regard, the University of the Witwatersrand, that the State had asked that university to train 200 doctors a year, and they were not even prepared to train 120, irrespective of their colour. They are not prepared to train 120 a year. This hon. member and his party will simply have to wait until facilities are available so that we can train non-white doctors gradually. To that same extent of the gradual development of our non-Whites, so that they can provide their own doctors, they will have to content themselves with that and the people outside will know that the National Party is implementing its policy as it suits us, and not as they prescribe to us to implement it.
Moreover, Sir, the hon. member said that there is not a single case where a non-white intruded in a white area, but that non-Whites are prevented, except when they have a permit, from working in white areas. Then I said to him by way of an interjection that this is not true. In Vryheid a doctor by the name of Green Thompson is practising. He is a good fellow, a coloured man, and he knows his place. He is not as obtrusive as that hon. member, who wants non-Whites to be taken up in the white areas in hospitals.
However, particularly with a view to the next election, he does not want to put the shoe on the other foot, because he realizes that he cannot tell the electorate of Natal what the policy of the United Party is in this connection. We are now being accused of not wanting to have non-white patients treated in the white areas, but our policy states very clearly that non-white patients will eventually be treated in the non-white areas. I wonder what the hon. member would say if a white community were expected to have its patients treated in a non-white area. This is the problem we are up against in Natal. Sir, the hon. member spoke about eggs. He said that if they are white, they are white, and if they are yellow they are yellow. I want to say that if they get the opportunity, they are going to create a hotch-potch in this Republic of ours which could never again be untangled, and the public outside should know this. It will be “scrambled eggs”.
Sir, I want to come back to my speech. The hon. the United Party is trying to make the world believe that certain facets of our national economy are not being looked after in this Budget. The ultimate conclusion which I draw from this is that the terrible concern expressed by the United Party and all its cronies, right to the top, is only related to the material aspects of our country. When I say “right to the top” I mean the big capitalists in our country. I listened to the hon. member for Turffontein, who made a good speech about the youth. He made only one mistake, one which bothers me. He did not say what youth he was referring to. Was he referring to young people over the age of 20, those over the age of 30, or, if they are United Party followers, over the age of 50? Was he referring to the pre-school child, or to the schoolgoing child? He did not say what group he was referring to. That is all that bothered me in his speech. Apart from that, I agree that he made a good speech.
I now want to come to the point of my speech. In this Budget more than R300 million is made available to the provinces. I do not want to burden the House with figures by quoting the exact amounts. What bothers me, is that all the provinces get that R300 million without submitting a budget to this Parliament. I am speaking of all the provinces now. I do not want to exclude any of them, and if people are going to become annoyed with me, they may do so. It is not necessary for the provinces to report to this House on how they spend these funds. I now make the statement that they can spend that money for forcing their political dogma onto the people with funds which are partially contributed by the Government.
That is Natal.
Yes, it is Natal, but I shall come to that. The only province which is still being governed by the United Party is Natal.
It is the only one which is being governed properly.
That money is allocated to them on a rand for rand basis. When one totals up that money, one finds that an amount of almost R700 million is being spent by the provinces. Then we find Natal, which, relatively speaking, receives by far the greatest contribution from the Budget of this Government, criticizing the Government instead of thanking it. They omit to tell the public of South Africa that when we took over from them in 1948—and do not tell me now that this is a hackneyed subject—there was not one single Government water scheme in the whole of Natal. Since that time more than R100 million has been spent on water conservation alone, in order to give the people of Natal the prosperity which they are enjoying to-day. Railway lines are being constructed and points of growth are being created costing hundreds of millions of rands. They are not concerned about the one leg mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he outlined the four legs of the economic development of our country. They are concerned about the economic aspect and the labour aspect. They are not concerned about the spiritual aspect at all. When I say that they are not concerned about it at all, I want to substantiate it.
One of the items of expenditures incurred by the provinces on a rand for rand basis is that in respect of education, from the child’s first day at school up to his attaining his matriculation certificate. What do we find in Natal? We find that the English-speaking schools of Natal, i.e. those in which English is used as the medium, have no problem in respect of facilities. They get from three to six A rugby fields on which to play.
Yes, just a minute I shall come to the hon. member as well. At the Afrikaans schools there is not even a place on the playground for a child to sit. There is no question of playgrounds at all.
This is what we have to cope with in Natal. What bothers me most of all in this whole matter is that they are in this way systematically converting the spiritual fibre of our children into a feeling of social inferiority. They are doing this deliberately. If it is not being done deliberately, the province would at least have kept its word of honour which it gave to the Minister of National Education—not the present Minister, but the previous one—i.e. that there would be no change in fees when technical and commercial schools were taken over. But what did they do? They were far cleverer than that. They did not tamper with the schools. There the fees remained the same. But they increased the hostel fees from R120 to R160 a year.
Moreover, they have a secret formula which gives the children of certain parents the right to study at those schools free of charge or by means of assistance. Others are excluded. The result is that a percentage of the children at the Willie Maree school who come from the rural areas and have to be accommodated there because they are not intellectually capable of being taught at the ordinary academic schools had to seek employment on the Railways and the roads. Other people and I had to find work for them. Their parents simply could not afford to pay R160. Neither can the parents fathom the formula which is applied to get these children into the hostels. In this way they are depriving our school children of the right eventually to advance to the top in the technical field, for which they were destined. This is the situation in Natal. But, Mr. Speaker, it goes much deeper than this.
I am sorry that the rotund hon. member for Durban (Point) is not here. He was one of those who indulged in a whispering campaign in the past election. It took place in my constituency and I assume it took place throughout Natal and in other provinces as well. This whispering campaign amounted to this, that if a problem arose at a hospital, it was said that it was a State hospital and that complaints had to be submitted to the Member of Parliament concerned. That was before the election. If an allowance which a parent had been receiving for years in respect of schooling for his child was suddenly refused, it was said that the matter had to be discussed with the Member of Parliament concerned. It was alleged to be his work, because it was a State school. This question of State schools, State hospitals and State institutions still being under provincial control, must come to an end. The public outside must know that the provincial administrations are responsible for both the bad roads and the good roads, that they are responsible for the hospitalization of both the Whites and the non-Whites in the white areas, because in the present Budget the hospitalization of the non-Whites in non-white areas has fortunately been taken out of the hands of the United Party. When I say the United Party, I am referring to Natal, because this is where the great evil has been taking place. I hesitate to say this, but I have very good reason to say that when they no longer had control over Bantu education and non-white education as a whole, they had to seek other ways of publicizing their dogma.
I want to conclude by saying that in spite of what the Franzsen Commission recommends, I wonder whether it will not be a good thing for the State to consider bringing the provinces into line with all these revenue votes contained in the Budget documents which have again been presented to us this Session. The Post Office had to submit theirs, the Railways had to submit theirs and the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education had to submit theirs. The capital expenditure in respect of the Bantu, even in respect of every Bantu school, is given here. This gives the United Party the right to discuss it. But no account is given here of the money spent by the provinces and the extent to which the provinces deal with their towns and cities, as they say, on behalf of the Government. If they want to strangle a town, they do so. If they do not want to strangle it, they do not. In this Budget debate reference has been made to the subdivision of agricultural land. The Natalians remained absolutely quiet, because they know that in Natal one can have two farmers with adjacent farms, both of whom have applied to the Natal Provincial Administration for subdivision of their land, and the one will get permission to do so, while the other is refused that permission. If one goes into the political attitude of the first farmer, one will find out that he got that permission through his connections, while the other man, who applied purely on merit, did not get permission. I can prove this statement. I can even furnish the names. While I am referring to this, and as this is a contentious matter, I think it will mean a tightening-up of our entire administration if for once we can also call our provinces to order, so that they may give an account of their stewardship and the trust which has been placed in them. Then the United Party in Natal will not have the privilege of going to the electorate and saying that the State does this and does that, while the State is in fact providing their bread and butter, and indeed to a much larger extent than in any other province.
Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the seriousness of this moment when with this speech I am taking the final stop in becoming a full-fledged member of this House with all its rich traditions and its history. To me it is in honour to stand here as the member for the constituency of Worcester. I want to express the hope that I may receive the necessary grace and wisdom throughout the years I may be serving here to enable me to serve my constituency and its interests well and also to render good service and contribute my share in the interests of my country and my people. I realize that this task is one which places great responsibilities on one and that one should go about this task in all seriousness, and it is my fervent wish that I may receive that grace.
I should like to say a few words about the constituency of Worcester. It is an agricultural area in which wine-farming constitutes the main ramification of the agricultural industry. If there are hon. members here who have not yet come to know the product of my constituency, I should like to refer them to what a former Afrikaans poet said about this product, i.e. that man and the higher orders of apes have a need for this product in order to create a condition of joy or euphoria, which normally is absent. This wine industry in my constituency also has its problems, as any other facet of the agricultural industry has its own problems, of course, but because of the expertise of the farmer and the research work which has been done and is being done by the Departments of Agriculture and the K.W.V., and, above all, with the grace of God, this area has achieved feats in the field of production of which we as the farmers of that area may be very proud. I may just mention in passing that the 25,000 morgen on which vineyards have been planted in this constituency, comprise 28 per cent of the total surface area on which viniculture is being practiced, and this piece of land yields 45 per cent of the total production of South Africa. I think this is a fine achievement, despite problems such as periodical conditions of drought and other conditions which can cause the industry to suffer setbacks.
Where I have referred to periodical conditions of drought, I am grateful to read in the Budget proposals that this Government is continuing to give higher priority to the supply of water to the agricultural industry. I notice here that capital expenditure for this financial year amounts to approximately R118 million, whereas a mere four years ago it amounted to R47 million. This strong action on the part of the State to supply water will mean a great deal to my constituency, too, and here I should like to express a few words of thanks to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. I have come to know him, Sir, as you do, as an approachable man, a man with an open door and man with sympathy for the cause of the farmer. As the committee which he has appointed is now investigating water problems, the water needs and potential, we in this constituency and in the whole of the, Breede River Valley have great confidence in things to come, which certainly will come. We have confidence in the future planning for this area in which my constituency falls. I want to tell you, Sir, that we do have our problems, but I should also like to bear witness to the fact that in this part of the country you will still find this sound outlook on life among the fanners and among the townspeople, principled people in whom diligence, honesty and faith form an important part of their characters. That is why we have every confidence that these people will also contribute their share in the interests of our country and people.
I should like to deal for a few moments with a matter frequently raised here during the past few days, i.e. the manpower shortage and the source of danger that constitutes to the economy of South Africa, as well as the source of danger that may be to the continued existence of our cultural structure in this country. I do not think there is anyone in this House or outside who would want the sound economy of South Africa to be impaired. I think such a person would be stupid. Nor do I think there is anyone who is so destructive as to want to destroy the cultural structure and our national character which have been developed over a long period of time. No, such a person may not exist, because if such a person did exist, he would be committing the highest form of treason. Now it is true that various points of view were expressed during the past few days with regard to the possible solution of this manpower shortage. I am not going to offer you a solution this evening, Sir; I cannot, but I want to deal with one point which, in my opinion, may contribute to relieving this problem. I should like to concentrate on this one aspect, i.e. that we must strive and should strive after a higher quality of labour and greater effort in performing that labour. The question poses itself to me: What must be done to develop this one important component of the labour structure, i.e. human capital. With human capital I mean man as a being, his achievement potential, but also his approach to labour as an inherent part of his character.
If I have to evaluate the contributory factors to economic growth, I must say that capital investment, initiative and raw materials are important, but if there is not quality labour so as to guarantee high productivity, first-mentioned three factors will mean nothing. My idea, and this is my humble opinion, therefore amounts to the fact that we should not look at the quantity of labour available on the labour market, but at the level of competence, the knowledge and the integrity standing of the labourer, his inspired loyalty and his enthusiasm in respect of rendering service, that is to render service to his country and to his people through his labour. It does not matter on what rung of the promotion ladder such a person finds himself. You may say to me that I am too idealistic or impractical in my view, but I want to tell you, Sir, my humble opinion on these matters I mentioned, is that these are the primary requirements in the matter of fulfilling our task. The question poses itself to me whether we have not perhaps subjugated these requirements to other more egotistical considerations. These requirements are determining factors which are not built into the human character. No, they are attained through education, but particularly through the education processes which every person undergoes.
That is why I want to make this statement in all modesty. You and I must never underestimate the importance of education as a means of producing human capital, because through these processes every individual learns and must learn the meaning and the value of respect for labour. Therefore education is an investment for the future, and not only to produce highly skilled workers. It also implies that ethical, social and cultural and other character-forming anchors are components or parts of the human capital which are just as important and indispensable as technological skill. Therefore we simply cannot concentrate on skill alone, although it is important, but the correct attitude towards honest labour is of equal importance to me. Skill is important; knowledge is indispensable, but, Sir, to you and to me the attitude must be for us to have the right perspective. My norm may therefore not be maximum compensation with a minimum effort on my part. Perhaps we should all reorientate ourselves in respect of labour, i.e. that labour is noble; that through my labour I can contribute towards national development, but—equally important—that in so doing I can share in serving my country and therefore also share in the future establishment and development of a cultural structure in which my children and your children and also their children will be safe and happy. This in my opinion, must be the primary attitude and view. Let us return to this truth.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude with a quotation which I support 100 per cent, a quotation of a well-known educationist, when he said—
Sir, in this I believe; this is my credo: Labour ennobles. It is not a disgrace to-day to work hard. It is not a disgrace to work six days per week. We should perhaps think again of working harder and longer hours.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this evening to congratulate the hon. member for Worcester on the constructive speech he made. I think that if he continues in this vein, he will make a very sound and valuable contribution to the debates in this House.
Sir, I have a further privilege this evening, and this is to stand here as a member of this honourable House. I am deeply under the impression of the great responsibility resting on our shoulders. Sir, you will certainly allow me to express my thanks to the older members of this House, both on this side and on the other side, for the way in which they have made me, as the baby of this House, feel at home, and indeed in such a way that it actually reminds me of the days when I was a baby in another house, i.e. the home of my parents. You know, Sir, there they also gave me a high chair such as this one, and after I sat down in the chair, they also placed a loose plank such as this before me so that I could not fall out.
Mr. Speaker, it is so ordained by the law of nature that, generally speaking, we find over all the centuries in all countries and among all nations that the leadership of the community as a whole was taken and exercised by the older generations in that community. If we consider the maturity, the experience and the knowledge necessary to give effective leadership in this connection, then it is in fact inevitable that this should be the case, and it is good and right that it should be, but I nevertheless believe that the youth of a country, and of a country such as South Africa, has a tremendously important part to play in society.
The part which the youth has to play in society covers an enormously wide field and has an enormous number of facets. This evening, however. I should just like to dwell on one facet of the part played by the youth which in my opinion is one of the most important facets. I believe that this first facet can be divided into two categories or two phases. The first phase to me is one of study. The youth must orientate itself historically in respect of its present position. It must know what the circumstances and the ideas were which gave rise to our present situation, because if it knows that, I believe we shall get a better insight into the problems which we have to contend to-day. It will know their origin and how it came about that we find ourselves in this position to-day. However, I also want to warn that in undertaking this study, we should not get so emotionally involved in the issues of the past that we want to fight those battles all over gain, because that will bring us no further. The whole object of this study should be to enable oneself to adopt an objective attitude in one’s own era.
Then we come to the second phase, and this is to be found in the fact that while we are earning we should not be like, for example, a big empty drum into which a lot of raw material, i.e. information, is thrown, and upon request the drum is simply tilted over and precisely the same things which were placed into it in the first place, just drop out of it in the same form. I believe we should evaluate this information; we must dissect and distil it so that we can determine why certain things failed in the past and why other things were successful. We must determine whether certain things were right or wrong, and why. Sir, with this knowledge, with this evaluation, we can go to meet the future of the country. This will give us people who can think on their feet and who will not be afraid to tackle the problems of the present head-on and try to solve them, because the youth will have to decide how it is going to manage the community one day when that opportunity arises. It must see to it that on that future day when the youth of to-day will be asked to take over the leadership, it will be ready to do so.
Sir, I want to associate myself with the wise words of the late President Kruger when he said: “Take from the past what is good and build on it for the future.” I think this also means that in the future we shall have to cut out and remove from our national life those things which were bad in our past and which were wrong in the past, but we can do this only if we have something better to substitute for them. I believe that it is this answer which the youth will have to find, the youth which to-day still has the chance to think, the chance to study, and I believe that the youth will indeed be able to fulfil this task. I have great confidence in our youth. But it will only be able to achieve this if it plays its part as thinking young people in our community life at the present moment; otherwise it will not be able to do so at the stage when it is asked to take the lead. Therefore I should like to say that we in this House should be fully aware of this enormously important role to be played by the youth and that we should do everything in our power to provide the necessary opportunities and the necessary stimuli for the youth to fulfil its role. For this reason we are also very grateful for what has been done in this Budget to assist our universities.
I want to go further and make an appeal to our youth to-day to appreciate and to accept this part they have to play. I want to make an appeal to them not to be indifferent towards the past or the future of South Africa or the problems facing our country now. I have already said that I have the fullest confidence in the youth of South Africa. I believe that we have the potential to do those great things, and we if we are successful in doing so, South Africa will be heading for a very great future. Then we shall be able to build up a nation of leaders at this southern tip of Africa, a nation who will provide leadership to the world in an ever-increasing number of spheres.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that one of the hon. members on that side of the House did not get up and congratulate the hon. member for Florida on his maiden speech. I think it would have been appropriate to have had congratulations offered to the hon. member for Florida from that side of the House, because I believe his was a most interesting contribution to the debate. He has indicated that he can play an important and useful part in future debates in this House. I congratulate him and wish him good luck.
Returning to the Budget debate, we on this side of the House have pointed out that the greatest failure of this Government in the Budget is that it has failed to provide long-term plans to counter the rising cost of living. It has failed to provide long-term plans to counter rising costs of living. This debate has now run several days …
And the Nats have run out of speakers.
Yes, the hon. member for Transkei rightly points out that the Nationalists have even run out of speakers; they have apparently also run out of ideas, as was pointed out by the hon. the Leader of the House.
What did you do so far?
Do you want a white flag?
It is perhaps more significant that they have not put in another speaker at this stage because none of their speakers have suggested any solution to the rising costs of living that each and every one is facing in South Africa to-day.
I believe that one of the spheres in which this Budget is particularly lacking is in the sphere of housing. This evening I want to deal not so much with the housing for which the hon. the Minister of Community Development is responsible, but with the housing which is beyond the reach of persons who are helped by his department. As the House will appreciate those persons who can be helped by national housing loans are those who are regarded as falling within the subeconomic and economic groups and who have limited incomes. In the case of the economic group it is those people with a salary of R300 and in the case of the subeconomic group a salary of, I believe, R108.
No, a salary of under R100.
Far from helping the other group, this Budget, I believe, could have the effect of making it even more difficult than it is becoming for the average middle income family to afford a house or even a flat. I am now talking specifically of those families beyond those income groups. I am now directing myself not to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. but to the Minister of Finance who is the only member of this Cabinet to whom I am able to direct my remarks this evening.
The hon. Minister of Community Development tells this House that there is no housing shortage.
I did not say that there was not a housing shortage. I said that there was not a crisis.
The hon. Minister says that the shortage is not a crisis. I think he is changing his position a little. In any event, I am pleased to know that the hon. Minister of Community Development now accepts that there is a shortage even though, according to him, it is not a crisis. I believe that even the shortage which exists in most parts of the country for the type of housing for which his department is responsible comes very near to being a crisis. But toe that as it may. I do not wish this evening to argue with that hon. Minister.
I think you are very wise.
Perhaps the hon. the Minister might like to put it this way. I shall have an argument with him on another occasion. This time I want to speak to the hon. Minister of Finance.
You are not my size!
I shall come back to the hon. Minister of Community Development.
Mr. Speaker, far from this Budget providing help for housing for persons for whom the Department of Community Development is not responsible, the Budget could directly or indirectly make it more difficult for the average South African family to afford a home of their own, whether it be a house or even a flat.
Let us take first of all the increase in interest rates. The hon. Minister of Finance has seen fit to allow the interest rate to "float”, if I may put it that way. We on this side of the House have said that under present circumstances, under the economic conditions created by this Government, this was inevitable for many reasons; amongst others, to enable building societies to bring in more money. We believe that if the economy had not been so mismanaged as it has been by this Government over the past few years, this would not have been necessary. But under present conditions, it is inevitable that the Government should have had to allow the interest rate to “float”. This, however, will have side effects which could affect every single person in this country, not only the home owner tout also the person who rents a flat and the person who occupies accommodation in, for example, a boarding house or a private residential hotel. It could have an effect on each and every one of these persons because of the real possibility of the mortgage rate going up. I am very pleased to have seen in to-night’s newspaper that the Association of Building Societies announced to-day that there would be no increase in the mortgage rate for housing but they have added a very important proviso which I want to draw to the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance. They have said the following:
It is obvious that this is bound to happen if other deposit-receiving institutions raise their rates. Building societies, in order to be able to attract moneys and to be able to complete, will have to put up their deposit interest rates and at the same time they will have to put up their mortgage rates. What is this Government going to do about it?
The hon. the Minister has said that he is going to help those people who at the present time, as I understand it, have a home valued at no more than R16,000. He will help them only to the extent of the increase from the present 8½ per cent to whatever increase there may be. He will pay the difference. This is only part of the story. This does not help in the least those persons with homes valued above R16.000. There are many homes to-day above the R16.000 mark in many parts of the country which are owned by quite average families, But above all, it does not in the least help those who wish to acquire homes from to-day onwards. No help whatsoever is being given in respect of the future. Those people who will be acquiring new homes from to-day onwards will receive no help. I see the hon. the Minister shakes his head He says that it is not so. I hope he will explain to the House when he replies why I am wrong. Perhaps he will say that his R16,000 applies to new homes acquired in the future as well. I hope that it does but I did not understand him to say this. Even if it does this is a drop in the ocean. I want to ask the Minister of Finance to go to the major cities of the country and see what type of housing can be purchased to-day for R16,000. Let him have a look in Cape Town and see what sort of housing he will be able to purchase here for R16,000. In all the major cities it is the same story. His assistance based on a limit of R16,000 is unrealistic and will not help very many people. I am now talking of those people who are beyond the income limit of the national housing schemes.
Do you know how much that income limit is? It is R5,000.
Mr Speaker, I am well aware of that income limit, but there are thousands of families to-day who are beyond the income limit for national housing, and who cannot afford housing—firstly because of the high cost of building and secondly because this Government is not prepared to give to building societies the sort of help which they require.
This is my plea to the Government this evening. If the Government is serious in wishing to house the families who are not assisted by National Housing, then drastic steps must be taken to assist the group of financial institutions that plays the biggest part in assisting to provide housing, namely the building societies.
Please be more explicit.
I will be. The hon. the Minister of Finance should not want me to be more specific. He has had a number of discussions with the building societies. He knows what they are asking him to do. However, for the benefit of the House, I will tell hon. members what building societies want. First of all, the hon. member for Pine-town asked the hon. the Minister of Finance to make it possible for building societies to give loans beyond R15,000. This is something which the building societies have been asking for, for a long time. Because with the high cost of building they are finding that there are demands on them, which are increasing every day, for loans beyond R15,000. These are not loans for luxury housing, but ordinary, reasonable housing for the average middle income family.
They are giving loans above R15,000.
The hon. the Minister of Finance knows what I am talking about. However, if he does not know, I will draw his attention to a lengthy discussion of this matter in the Chairman’s report of one of the leading South African building societies, the South African Permanent Building Society. In this report he says:
The hon. the Minister knows this. The Chairman went on to say:
Unfortunately I do not have enough time to read the whole passage. However, he then goes on to deal with this position. The hon. member for Pinetown made a suggestion that the period of repayment should be lengthened. This would certainly help. This is one of the major restrictions that building societies are facing to-day. Unless the Government is prepared to do something about it, they are not going to be able to meet the demands for loans which they are getting. Every single building society in their recent reports, has drawn attention to the fact that they have had requests for bonds beyond their means. They all have a backlog.
Another way in which the hon. the Minister could help building societies considerably is to increase the limit of tax-free shares. This is one of the ways in which building societies have been able to draw in considerable sums of money since this tax concession was granted to them. But the limit of the deposits is R6,000. This is not a very large sum for individuals by comparison with the huge sums which persons can deposit with the Government on a tax-free basis. There is just no comparison between the two. If the hon. the Minister of Finance were to raise the limit for tax-free shares that each individual can deposit with the building societies, this would ensure that considerably larger funds were invested and deposited in the building societies. It would in turn enable them to lend more moneys.
By doing this, they may then still be able to keep the interests rate on mortgage bonds down to 8½ per cent. Unless they can get in further large sums of money, and if other deposit-receiving institutions raise interest rates, building societies will have no alternative but to raise their rates. What will happen if they raise their rates? It is not only the owner of property who will be affected, but the tenant of property as well, because as soon as the owner of rented property has his mortgage rates increased he must go to the Rent Board, if it is a rent-controlled building for a rent increase. If it is not a rent-controlled building, he automatically passes on that increase on mortgage interest rates to his tenant. The same applies to persons who occupy accommodation in boarding houses, private hotels and so forth. As soon as the owner is faced with increased interest on his bond, he will simply increase the tariff of his boarding establishment.
This will affect almost every South African. It is a very serious situation, particularly at a time like this when most people are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. What is the Government going to do about this? This is what I ask the hon. the Minister of finance pertinently. There is a real possibility that mortgage rates will go up. If not immediately, they will go up in the near future unless the Government takes realistic steps, to assist building societies to maintain the mortgage rates at their present level.
Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.
The House adjourned at